I've never heard of a ruling like this in western jurisprudence. It basically merges the judicial and executive functions without the right of due process of law. It's potential application as a precedent for more serious offenses if frightful.

You are correct that the character of this erosion of liberty seems very British. This is the type of philosophy/mindset that could be corrected with an independent England.
redwald | 05.07.06 - 8:07 pm | #

Is anyone going to challenge this? Reason i'm asking is that the 1689 bill of rights states: 'That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void'.
The judge says they aren't fines so what are they? I think the wool is being pulled over our eyes again
merciancrusader | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 4:44 pm | #

I think he said it was a charge but as far as I'm aware Robin didn't enter into any contract with the owner of the carpark and surely demanding money is a forfeiture?
wonkotsane | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 9:33 pm | #