Back Statment's
(reckless driving or careless or inconsiderate driving).
(5) In Scotland a person may be convicted of an offence under section 2 of
that Act by virtue of section 23(1) or (2) of this Act notwithstanding that
the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act has not been satisfied as respects
that offence.
(6) A person may be convicted of an offence under section 3 or 29 of that
Act (careless and inconsiderate driving or careless and inconsiderate cycling)
notwithstanding that the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act has not been
satisfied as respects that offence where-
(a) the charge for the offence has been preferred against him by virtue of
section 24(3) of this Act, and
(b) that requirement has been satisfied as respects the alleged offence under
section 2 or, as the case may be, 28 of that Act (reckless driving or reckless
cycling).
Metropolitan Asylum District v Hill 1881 6App Cas.193 makes clear that authority
needs to be shown by those relying on it
A permissive authority that states central government and or in the alternative
local government and other state institutions and organizations MAY do something
is not a sufficient authority to charge citizens fees according to a persons
Common Law tradable rights as made clear by Curry v Misa (1875) L.R.10 Exch.
153 because a Common Law Right is tradable property and therefore the right
in question is only subject to a mandatory statute given full and proper royal
Assent that states exactly what a person must do and or in the alternative
suffer at their own expense.
For an example of the AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE wording see the
Copyright Act 1920 which I hereby claim is an example of the wording
required to make a
act enforceable
at a persons own expense and I am entitled to use the Copyright Act 1920
to show the way an Act of Parliament must be drawn in order take away
what is
otherwise everyone’s private right to charge as much as they wish
for complying with.
If the crown prosecution cannot show sufficient authority
then it can no longer have an honest belief in its authority to appropriate
other people’s
property AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE namely those persons money in fines and their
time and effort in being forced to attend Court in terror of having their property
damaged by what can only be establishment terrorists attempting to maintain
what may be called a criminal ruling class terrorist society that has infiltrated
central and local Government institutions and organizations.
Back Statment's
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
