Plans to close courts in Devon and Cornwall 'not final'

Halfhidden

Untouchable
Administrator
View attachment 220
Plans to close a number of local courts will not be finalised without taking account of public concerns, the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has told the BBC.
Mr Clarke commented during an event in Totnes, Devon, to mark the retirement of the town's former MP, Anthony Steen.
Seven courts in Devon and Cornwall face closure under Ministry of Justice plans.
The public consultation ended in September and a final decision is expected by the end of the year.
Mr Clarke said: "We won't announce any definite closures until we're satisfied that we've listened to everything that local people have said and see whether they raise some case for keeping the courts open.
"No doubt that will happen in some cases."
But Mr Clarke also warned that the geographical location of some courts would not be enough to keep them open:
"Closing a court is not like closing a post office.
"Most people only go into a court once or twice in their lives... you should be prepared to travel," he said, adding, "I do realise that in rural areas you've got to think hard about how people are going to have sensible access to courts when they need them."
In Cornwall, the courts which could be shut are Liskeard Magistrates, Camborne Magistrates, Penzance Magistrates and Penzance County Court.
'False economy'
In Devon, Newton Abbot Magistrates, Totnes Magistrates and Honiton Magistrates may close.
In total, 103 magistrates' courts and 54 county courts could be axed in England and Wales.
Closing them would save the government an estimated £15m a year in running costs, plus £22m in maintenance of the buildings.
Earlier this month the Cambridge law academic John Spencer QC warned that closing local courts could be a false economy because people may not be able to get to court, leading cases to be adjourned.


Article from BBC News
 

46traveller

Member
Thin edge of the wedge methinks. They must be making thousands a day just on PCNs paid without thinking. The law states innocent till proved guilty, they are convincing folk that the fine will double if you don't pay within a time limit. This is tantamount to fraud, as you have not had a chance to defend yourself according to the law. They put a section in for mitigating circumstances, but that is not the same as a court case. These fines are just money making exercises, write to the council and ask how much revenue these bring in per annum, see if you get an answer I didn't. They don't need as many courts as long as we keep paying out by post without thought. If more people demand their rights to a fair hearing, the court closures will not be possible.

(Totally Illegal, Simply put; if you are given a fine without being put in a court of law first, the fine is invalid. This applies to any fine given to you including speeding fines, congestion charge, and a fine given to you by a policeman, in fact any fine you receive without/before appearing in Court)
icon12.gif
 

46traveller

Member
For your enlightenment>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Section 1(a) and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 carries a ten year prison term.
Section 2 provides:
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he–
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation– (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if– (a) it is untrue or MISLEADING, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Furthermore, these claims also seem to come close to breaching section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, which holds:
1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—
(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
(c) falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or
(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

Think that just about sums up the position of Parking Fines etc. Cornwall Council are operating fraudulently with regards to these PCNs.
 

46traveller

Member
And finally, for those that would say "Surely this can't be right".


House Of Lords Statements

On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. She said:
"There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."

Lord Wilberforce, speaking in the House of Lords in 1997 said:
"Perhaps I may remind noble lords of what our essential civil rights, as guaranteed by common law, are: the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair hearing; no man to be obliged to testify against himself; the rule against double jeopardy; no retrospective legislation; no legislation to be given an effect contrary to international law - an old principle that has been there for years; freedom of expression; and freedom of association …firmly secured already by the common law of this country, and not intended to be superseded or modified by new inter-state obligations…"

Once again, John Locke distilled the issue:

"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
 
Top Bottom