Speeding fine advice request

user1977

Risteard said:

Okell said:

Risteard said:

Aretnap said:

Risteard said:

Okell said:

Risteard said:

TooManyPoints said:

"The reality is that a prosecution cannot possibly succeed without evidence that the letter was received."

Would you like to explain why you believe that is correct (with something to support it beyond mentioning "natural justice").

I have demonstrated, quoting the appropriate legislation that it is not correct. What you are posting is not an "opposing view". It is simply incorrect and misleading information which will cost anyone believing it a shedload of aggravation and money. The law governing this issue is not subject to a view or an opinion. It is simple fact

You are derailing the thread with this nonsense and it is confusing the OP. I'm sure there are plenty of places where your twaddle will be welcome. But this is a serious site where people want reliable advice, so I suggest this is not one of them.

It's simple logic. You explain to me how it could be possible to prove that the letter wasn't received were the burden of proof on the non-recipient. Bootlicking Peelers isn't cool.

You might want to acquaint both yourself and your simple logic with s7 of the Interpretation Act 1978:

"7 References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."  [My bold for emphasis]

What that means is that so long as the police can provide evidence that the notice/s172 request was correctly sent out, then it is legally presumed to have been delivered, unless the addressee can prove otherwise.  That means that it is up to the addressee to prove that it was not delivered, not up to the police to prove that it was.

Do you understand?

You never answered how it could be possible to prove that it wasn't received. Therefore this so-called "legislation" is null and void. It is unlawful.

Not only is it impossible for primary legislation to be "null and void" or "unlawful", it's also irrelevant to the situation the OP's husband is apparently in. 

You are just yelling at clouds now.

It's certainly possible for so-called "legislation" to, in fact, be unlawful. And then to be struck down.

Can you give any examples?

All "COVID" restrictions on people's lives were clearly unlawful.

Which of them were found to be so by a court?

Okell

Risteard said:

Okell said:

Risteard said:

Aretnap said:

Risteard said:

Okell said:

Risteard said:

TooManyPoints said:

"The reality is that a prosecution cannot possibly succeed without evidence that the letter was received."

Would you like to explain why you believe that is correct (with something to support it beyond mentioning "natural justice").

I have demonstrated, quoting the appropriate legislation that it is not correct. What you are posting is not an "opposing view". It is simply incorrect and misleading information which will cost anyone believing it a shedload of aggravation and money. The law governing this issue is not subject to a view or an opinion. It is simple fact

You are derailing the thread with this nonsense and it is confusing the OP. I'm sure there are plenty of places where your twaddle will be welcome. But this is a serious site where people want reliable advice, so I suggest this is not one of them.

It's simple logic. You explain to me how it could be possible to prove that the letter wasn't received were the burden of proof on the non-recipient. Bootlicking Peelers isn't cool.

You might want to acquaint both yourself and your simple logic with s7 of the Interpretation Act 1978:

"7 References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."  [My bold for emphasis]

What that means is that so long as the police can provide evidence that the notice/s172 request was correctly sent out, then it is legally presumed to have been delivered, unless the addressee can prove otherwise.  That means that it is up to the addressee to prove that it was not delivered, not up to the police to prove that it was.

Do you understand?

You never answered how it could be possible to prove that it wasn't received. Therefore this so-called "legislation" is null and void. It is unlawful.

Not only is it impossible for primary legislation to be "null and void" or "unlawful", it's also irrelevant to the situation the OP's husband is apparently in. 

You are just yelling at clouds now.

It's certainly possible for so-called "legislation" to, in fact, be unlawful. And then to be struck down.

Can you give any examples?

An obvious example is constitutional courts. Governments are not infallible. Starmer is not a good person. (Neither are many of them.)

All "COVID" restrictions on people's lives were clearly unlawful.

First, you don't address the question you were asked, which was to give examples of legislation that is, in fact, unlawful and has been struck down.

Second, as @Car_54 has already said, this country doesn't have a constitutional court as such, so your first "obvious" point is a non-starter.  So who, in your understanding, is going to strike down these unlawful laws?

Third, of all the COVID restrictions that were introduced can you, by reference to some legal authority, explain why they were clearly unlawful?  What made them unlawful?  If they were unlawful why weren't they, in your own words, struck down by somebody?

Four, can you give examples from this country (not the USA or anywhere else) where legislation passed by Parliament - like the Interpreation Act referred to previously - has been struck down and/or declared to be unlawful?

You sound as if you've been captured by some FMOTL  or "sovereign citizen" thinking that really is balderdash and utter tosh.  If you keep thinking along those lines I'd have thought you run the risk of having problems with the authorities - whether facist or not.