The Common Law Right to Travel in detail

The Common Law Right to Travel in detail

Many people asked me NOT to write this, however I’ve come to the opinion that it’s time this issue was examined in detail and the case law you’ll need, should you get into trouble exercising your ‘Right To Travel’, more fully explained.

Some of this information is readily available elsewhere, but the court cases the information was lifted from is not there, as often this kind of information is pushed around the internet without any real examination of the facts. To that end I’ve taken it upon myself to elaborate further and show you where you can find a wealth (literally!) of legal information for FREE.

Many people will have seen various videos on YouTube and elsewhere, regarding this issue. But precious few will have explained to you where you can get the ‘legal’ information you might need, especially if you want to avoid some time courtesy of Her Majesty’s Bed and Breakfast establishment’s scattered around the country!

I was influenced a very long time ago, by stories then circulating amongst friends of mine in the USA, about Charlie Sprinkle. More on Charlie can be found on my blog HERE Charlie has, sadly, passed away since I wrote that piece and I now feel I owe him a debt of gratitude for reminding me that, it’s often humble people from ordinary backgrounds that can affect the greatest change. So this article is inspired by Charlie Sprinkle.

Now, although this is dedicated to that great Californian champion, this article is aimed squarely at those people residing in the UK. Although, you can cite case law in a defence (and academic opinion) from almost anywhere.

The sources used for this piece include:-

bailii.org (British and Irish Legal Information Institute, a reference for many solicitors and law professionals in the UK), look up case law from almost anywhere in the world. Open to use by members of the public FREE.

legislation.gov.uk (the Governments’ own web site covering legal the full content of ‘statutes’ and ‘Acts’), covers legislation for Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales. Also FREE to use and extremely useful. I use it almost daily.

Halsburys Laws of England is another essential component in our quest for TRUTH, curently edited by Baron Mackay of Clashfern a Scot.

I urge you always to do your own research and the best place to start is by searching the database of Halsbury’s Laws of England here http://lexisweb.co.uk/guides/sources/halsbury-s-laws-of-england

The House of Lords, the UK parliament web site and many other sources (including YouTube) are useful too and these formed part of my overall research.

I will give you the exact case law, which you can then verify for yourselves that what I’ve put here is truthful.

Charlie Sprinkle’s entire court action is also available on-line, should my American friends wish to step-by-step follow his example, which is truly remarkable. See my earlier piece on Charlie and watch some videos of Charlie describing the process he used  HERE

Firstly, the case law you need to to study (in date order), are these:-

R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 at 507, [1934] All ER Rep 207 at 210. In delivering the judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal Swift J, said:-

“If an act is unlawful in the sense of being in itself a criminal act, it is plain that it cannot be rendered lawful because the person to whose detriment it is done consents to it. No person can license another to commit a crime.”

Justice Swift is telling us that, driving without government documents such as licences, MOT’s etc., cannot be ‘of itself criminal’, as the government licences these acts and therefore they cannot be criminal.

This is still a leading case, as can be seen from this document which can be found on The House of Lords’ website:

 http://www.commonlii.org/in/journals/NLUDLRS/2011/8.pdf

Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191 Wills J. said in regard to public right of passage:-

“The only ‘dedication’ in the legal sense that we are aware of is that of a public right of passage, of which the legal description is a ‘right for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.’ ”

 

This makes the point that you can travel freely and that you can pass without ‘let’ (to hinder or stand in the way of)  or ‘hindrance’ (obstruction). The phrase ‘without let or hindrance’, meaning, without impediment, something that is free to progress.

Read the whole piece in the context of the case at the House of Lords: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones01.htm

It’s often interesting to look up some of the other case law cited in a judgement too.

DPP v. Jones and Another [1999] Lord Irvine LC

“The law should not make unlawful what is commonplace and well accepted.”

Lord Irvine makes the point that, one day you were a farmer with a shotgun, the next you’re a criminal because you don’t have a license for it. (a license has been required since 1962). See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

See this UK Parliament (House of Lords) document here for a full transcript of the case: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones01.htm

Interestingly, this article coincided with the News that, Khat is to become illegal in this country too (at the time of writing), so those people who have it in their possession from next week will become criminals!

These cases help our understanding of and help to define the ‘common law right to travel’ argument in the legal realm.

So there you have it, I hope that helps many people, including the Police and other law professionals themselves, as I’m sure many of then would rather be chasing/prosecuting real criminals.

Another common concern amongst many of you seems to be whether Solicitors act for you or the Courts… well this should help focus that argument and dispel another myth or two.

In the famous case of Batchelor -v- Pattison & Mackersy (1876) 3R914 which establishes that solicitors are officers of the court and owe the court various duties which can transcend duties owed to a client but generally when a counsel is employed the solicitor is bound to follow his instructions. In England the Rondel -v- Worley 1969 AC191 case established that solicitors “should not blindly follow counsel”.

This obviously has implications for questions of negligence when they arise in the context of the conduct of hearings. In the above case the client decided to sue his former solicitor in relation to his conduct of the trial claiming that his solicitor had been negligent. He advanced a human rights argument that he had been denied a fair trial because of negligence and claimed a miscarriage of justice had resulted. He did not aver that he would have been acquitted but for this negligence.

So there you have it, two myths dispelled for the price of one!

Many books on aspects of Law cost well over a £1,000 including Greens Litigation Styles and indeed ‘Halsbury’s Laws of England’ which costs a not inconsiderable sum of £10,100 for the latest 5th edition (at time of writing), yes, you read that correctly! See HERE. Yet we’re told that ignorance of the law is NO DEFENCE! How can we possibly understand the law when it’s prohibitively expensive to buy such books and they’re not available in my (or your), local library for the same reason? Of course this is a deliberate attempt to keep you in that state of ‘ignorance’, so that administrative courts can unlawfully steal your debt money.

By the way Lord Halsbury was a very interesting man and I’ll finish by quoting a piece from that excellent (though expensive!) work that bears his name:-

 “It is a constitutional principle that the assent of the Queen & Parliament is prerequisite to the establishment of a Court which can operate a system of administrative law in Her Majesty’s Courts in England. This was confirmed by Lord Denning during the debates on the European Communities Amendment Bill, HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250: “There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.”

 

So, even if you do get dragged to court over ‘alleged’  council tax, parking fines etc., you now know that administrative courts are unconstitutional and have no constitutional authority derived from parliament. They’re businesses, pure and simple. Don’t play their game.

I will be writing more on the contents of ‘Halsbury’s Laws of England’ soon, especially an in depth look at why there is NO authority for administrative courts in this country and no Act can be passed to legitimise them because of the constitutional restraints placed upon her Majesty at Her coronation (touched on in the above quote). Which means they can’t pursue you for Council Tax etc. I’ve stated many times, all taxes are voluntary! More on that coming soon, so look back.

In closing this article, you might want an understanding of the rules of OSCOLA (a guide to understanding and presenting/citing case law etc), by downloading the pdf quick guide HERE or a more in depth guide HERE

My end quote for this article is by LORD HALSBURY, HARDINGE STANLEY GIFFARD British statesman (1823 – 1921)

“My Lords, I have more than once had occasion to say that in construing a statute I believe the worst person to construe it is the person who is responsible for its draft.”
– 1902 Appeal Cases (p. 477)

Terms

This site is maintained by James-Neely: Gillan™ and his Sponsors.

You should be aware that the information on this website cannot be a substitute for legal advice – knowledge and understanding of the relevant law is important so that appropriate steps can be taken to safeguard the adult in any particular case.

By using this website you agree to be legally bound by the terms and conditions set out below. If you do not want to be bound by these terms please discontinue the use of this site.

This site is produced by James-Neely:Gillan™ and whilst seeking to ensure that the information published on the site is up-to-date and accurate, the information on the site does not constitute legal or professional advice and James-Neely:Gillan™ and his Sponsors cannot accept any liability for actions arising from its use.

Copyright © 2011 – 2014 Free The People™
This web site is generously supported by The Digital Network with low cost PREMIUM web hosting and many other facilities that would cost us far too much elsewhere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>