While I agree that the courts are frustratingly slow, and 'justice' (not just a mere rubber stamping of whatever 'legislators' seem to think the 'law' should be today) does need to be dispensed in a much more timely fashion, this is most certainly not the way to go about it.

If they had suggested 'roving judges' that were employed by and qualified by the courts that would be dispatched to the scene to provide a limited set of services that would be one thing, and provided it was set up right, possibly helpful. This however, is nothing short of a recipe for the police state to make it's grand entrance.

Before the PACE act 1984 Police could hold without charge for up to 24 hours. This is how they would deal with rowdy drunks, youths throwing bricks through windows, etc. etc. No trial but no criminal record or sanctions either.

The Tory Taliban reckon we should repeal that and go back to the way things were for centuries before that.

Whether it's a good idea or not, it's crazy that this isn't even considered as an option nowadays due to prisoner's rights, but ASBOs, the new idea of dumping problem families in monitored estates and this thing are perfectly ok.

Surely it cheapens the crime of vandalism to suggest that lobbing a brick through a window doesn't earn you a day in Court?

Is Tony suggesting society demonstrate a tolerance for vandalism?

Isn't this like a plea of guilty without the formality of a trial? If Bob Yob can "fight the case in court" then what is being lost with this procedure?

No Perry, of course you haven't been alarmist. You haven't even been a little excitable. Blair's nature has been plainly obvious from even when he was Leader of the Opposition. On the basis that these things only go one way, once the principle of instant fines are forced onto us, instant incarceration comes next. This presupposes that the rozzers are introduced to the concept of pavements. I haven't seen a copper use his feet for years. Having said that, Blair is obviously not familiar with the Bill of Rights, which renders his plan unconstitutional:

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

As the Bill of Rights was laid down in 1689 he probably thinks it just isn't, like, yer know, 'relevent' anymore.

If they had suggested 'roving judges' that were employed by and qualified by the courts that would be dispatched to the scene to provide a limited set of services that would be one thing, and provided it was set up right, possibly helpful. This however, is nothing short of a recipe for the police state to make it's grand entrance.

You mean Assizes courts, right? I think that the very last thing we need is a 18th Century system where judges travel with a portable gallows and a strongbox for all the penalty fines they can levy in a fixed period of days.

Perhaps we should revert to ecclesiastical courts, similar to the Consistory Courts in the West Country that were responsible for maintaining moral and religious rectitude.

Pete,
The Bill of Rights of 1689, like any other act of Parliament, can be changed or superseded by any other act of Parliament. That’s what happened to the Englishman’s right to keep and bear arms (same Bill of Rights).

Isn't this like a plea of guilty without the formality of a trial? If Bob Yob can "fight the case in court" then what is being lost with this procedure?

No. It's a presumption of guilt and execution of "justice" without the formality of virtually any formalities, let alone a trial. What is being lost? Only the one of the most fundamental principles of any real justice system.

How about a duty magistrate on call who can examine the evidence and issue the penalty/caution/discharge on camera at the police station? It would streamline the existing system (and be subject to appeal to a regular court) and protect both suspects AND police officers..............

Tony Blair hit back by revealing his frustration with a slow and laborious courts system, saying he wanted more "summary justice" to be dispensed by police officers.

... as in the swift "summary justice" handed out by the police at Stockwell underground station recently I presume?

I think that there are some countries where this already applies, on a more imformal basis. If policeman sees you doing something that he thinks might be wrong he will arrest you with the option of paying him a small charge so that the problem 'goes away' and you don't have to go through the court system. I believe it is called something like 'corruption'.

The Bill of Rights of 1689, like any other act of Parliament, can be changed or superseded by any other act of Parliament. That’s what happened to the Englishman’s right to keep and bear arms (same Bill of Rights).

The Metric Martyrs case established that Constitutional statutes such as the Bill of Rights may not be impliedly repealed by subsequent ordinary legislation, but may only be amended by specific Constitutional legislation.

The effect in that case was to show that the European Communities Act 1972 had not been impliedly repealed by the Weights & Measures Act 1985.

The Bill of Rights is still the law of the land, and this fact has been made clear in the courts. Inasmuch as the Home Office in 1968 sent all police forces a memorandum instructing them never to issue any firearms certificates for self defence, that instruction was ultra vires and unconstitutional. However, in the absence of any legal challenge to this illegal governmental diktat, thus far the Home Office has got away with it.

The next time some jack in office attempts to levy an "administrative fine" on you for allegedly failing to do something to his satisfaction, tell him to stick his fine up his arse. A bureaukraut is not a court of law, and you are not a number, you are a free man, unless or until the passage of the Tony Blair is God Act 2005.

Judge Dredd indeed. I wonder if Bliar would be so gung ho if his or Straw's sons had been at the sharp end of "summary justice"?

anonymous coward

The provisions of the Bill of Rights can only be changed or superceded by a latter Act if that latter Act explicitly states which sections are superceded. The principle of 'implied repeal' where a latter Act automatically repeals an earlier Act (or sections of it) which it comes into conflict with doesn't apply to the Bill of Rights. As a Constitutional Statute the Bill of Rights takes precedence where it conflicts with another Act.

So, if Blair's word is used to authorise these fines he will be acting ultra vires. If an Act of Parliament is used it must specifically repeal that part of the Bill of Rights forbidding fines prior to conviction. I've got to run, Village Hampden sums it up nicely.

anonymous coward

Sean Gabb has more on it.

You should all stop getting so excited about the Bill of Rights.

If Blair decides he needs or wants to repeal it then he will do just that - probably in a small clause added onto one of his endless series of "Police and Serious Organised Crime (today's variants)" acts.

And that will be end of your precious constitutional rights.

Anyone betting that he can't do that?

Or that he won't, as soon as it becomes an obstacle to his ambitions?

Blair must go. There is no other way.

It seems that the government is already looking at ways of doing just that.

Andrew Duffin

Of course, but the point is that Blair would have to admit in plain English what he was doing. He cannot simply ram a Bill through Parliament stating that the Police can hand out fines on the spot, he would have to declare that he is abolishing that which prevents this and that our constitution is being amended to bring this about.

Blair must go. There is no other way.

Well bravo. Just how do we achieve this without sustained, dogged, principled and effective opposition?

Andrew Duffin: "Anyone betting that he can't do that?"

Well, he wouldn't have been able to if Lord Strathclyde hadn't spinelessly agreed to the removal of the old guard from the Lords, which in turn permitted Blair to stuff the house with his placemen.

The Lords were supposed to be the guardians of the constitution.

Regarding possible amendments or repeals of the Bill of Rights 1688 or even the European Communities Act 1972 etc.

They are all subservient to the Civil Contingecies Act 2004 Part 2 Emergency Powers, where the Government specifically rejected attempts to have these and other Acts which might be considered to be part of a written contitution
e.g.

Magna Carta 1297
Bill of Rights 1688
Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689
Act of Settlement 1700
Union with Scotland Act 1707
Union with Ireland Act 1800
Parliament Acts 1911-49
Life Peerages Act 1958
Emergency Powers Act 1964
European Communities Act 1972
House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975
British Nationality Act 1981
Supreme Court Act 1981
Representation of the People Act 1983
Government of Wales Act 1998
Human Rights Act 1998
Northern Ireland Act 1998
Scotland Act 1998
House of Lords Act 1999

exempted from the dictatorial powers available to Senior Ministers, who can, in secret, declare an Emergency, and issue Orders (which can be Oral Orders and not even written down) which

"make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative"

See the Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Civil Contingencies Act

The only exception is any use of the Civil Contingecies Act to amend the Civil Contingecies Act itself e.g. to prolong the state of emergency indefinately without having to be rubberstamped by Parliament (something which few dictatorships have ever found much difficulty in arranging)

Isn't Blair now re-cycling his previously failed "pretend to be tough on crime" brainwaves ? Whatever happened to his previous "on the spot fines, involving marching drunks off to ATM cashpoints" idea ?

WTWU

They are all subservient to the Civil Contingecies Act 2004 Part 2 Emergency Powers ...

Maybe not the Bill of Rights. The Telegraph link posted by Rob Knight states:

But, as Mr Herron points out, the Bill of Rights itself only enshrines the Declaration of Rights, which was a solemn contract between Sovereign and People, and which Parliament has no power to undo. When those Sunderland officials seized Mr Thoburn's scales in 2000, they can little have guessed what a constitutional can of worms they were about to open.

I have no idea if Neil Herron is right but do know he's a tenacious fella and a marvel at ferreting out legal anomolies and absurdities. If he says Parliament has no jurisdiction over the Bill of Rights then it's a serious proposition which needs investigation.

I'm sure you can see where the quote marks should be.

A little more, from the Telegraph of 13/02/2005:

If all these bodies imagine that, under the Laws judgment, they have a simple remedy – namely to rush through an Act of Parliament explicitly overruling the Bill of Rights – Mr de Crittenden has another trick up his sleeve. The Bill of Rights may have been enshrined in an Act of Parliament, but the Declaration of Rights on which it was based was a contract between the sovereign and the people. It is by that Declaration that the monarch occupies her throne and by which Parliament enjoys its power, and it cannot be repealed. Thus, if Laws is right, fixed penalties without conviction cannot be legalised. Either that, or the Metric Martyrs were innocent.

Another example, of course, of why the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament, even at the expense of individual rights, is not quite such a wonderful thing, as certain commentators here in the past, have claimed.

Bill of Rights itself only enshrines the Declaration of Rights, which was a solemn contract between Sovereign and People, and which Parliament has no power to undo

Given that Parliament drew up and presented the Declaration of Rights as well as the subsequent Bill, this would appear not to be the case. Even then, "People" really means "people as represented by Parliament."

EG

Correction re exemptions to the Civil Contingecies Act 2004 Part 2 Eemergency Powers - the Human Rughts Act 1998 is also exempt from being amended or repealed, but since it already includes massive "coach and horses" exemptions and loopholes for "National Security" or "Public Health" etc, it is irrelevant once a Minister has declared an Emergency.

Even if, somehow the Bill of Rights or any of the other Acts mentioned still apply in theory, in practice they will not, as Emergency Orders can and will suspend the normal functioning of the Judicial system, allow for forced evacuations to, say "bird flu quarantine camps (i.e. for many people a death sentence)", confiscation and/or destruction of property without financial compensation, censorship of the press and media and the internet etc. etc.

Of course there are no legal sanctions against any Minsisters or petty bureaucrats who exceed their powers.

All the legal powers for a V for Vendetta situation are already in place.

I'm concerned, but I'm curious how this differs from say, police handing out traffic tickets. In the case of running a red light, a police officer may give me a substantial fine with no more evidence than his or her word. Now I have a period of time to pay and appeal the fine, but how does what is proposed differ from only extending the current state of arrairs to vandalism?

It worked on that Brazillian fellow in the tube. Multiple shots to the head. Justice done! Please drive thru.

Except that it didn't work because he was innocent. Unless that was your actual meaning?

I think it's called irony, Julian.

EG

When does the monarch have the right to step in and say, "That's enough of this nonsense." Would the Queen or the Prince of Wales ever bother?

- Josh

Would the Queen or the Prince of Wales ever bother?

No.