In respect also, to the previous letter, complaint email, may I also draw your attention to these following acts of law, and although they are older laws, and mostly have been replaced, they still are valid indicators of legal matters & concerns that can be used as evidence in relation to crimes & offences when evaluating them. In particular (note I have inserted the relevant example): The Criminal Law Act 1967 section 5. Penalties for concealing offences or giving false information.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/5(1) Where a person has committed
(causing drivers to contravene traffic regulation orders) or (permitting drivers to contravene traffic regulation orders) or (giving a false account of a speed limit or traffic regulation order)], any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence or some [other relevant offence] [(causing drivers to contravene traffic regulation orders) or (permitting drivers to contravene traffic regulation orders) or (giving a false account of a speed limit or traffic regulation order)] has been committed, [being the Secretary of State for transport Chris Grayling MP, the Chief Executive of the DVLA Julie Lennard, the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency Jim O'Sullivan, the Chief police officer Anthont bangham or the Prime Minister Theresa May, Of any Crown prosecutor ] and that he(or she) has information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender for it, accepts or agrees to accept for not disclosing that information any consideration (other than the making good of loss or injury caused by the offence, or the making of reasonable compensation for that loss or injury), shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for not more that two years.
Basically if complaints are made, by the public, particularly a large number of complaints, over illegal road signage & any other enforcement matter.. giving substantial information. facts or details to any relevant authority, in connection with such complaints.. It would have been (& still should be) illegal to refuse to act, or to attempt to conceal the matter, or give false information. Which would include giving false statistics of the number of vehicles that have been issued with fixed penalty notices. Or false information about road signage that has been proved to be unlawful or challenged as being unlawful. Or placed unlawfully on purpose... which brings me to this interesting legislation find:
Placing unlawful road signage (officially deemed unlawful once it has been proved) through Civil Dispute, mediation OR in a Civil court, or any procedure by any Public or Government authority taking action to remedy and admit such a fault) which has been found & proved at multiple sites of roads, particularly in the presence of live active or regular enforcement activity or speed. Where proper regular checks were supposed to have been carried out. Particularly where Police camera officers & traffic management officers have been to visit the road site & placed their own signs, but failed to correct other signs they are jointly responsible for maintaining, as a Road traffic authority.. is very strong evidence that there has been planning & intent behind such signal/signage errors. A Vessel is synonymous with a "vehicle". And a signal synonymous with a "sign". Its clearly the same principle in effect. People being mislead by notices and being subjected to a loss (particularly to a fine or loss of entitlement, such as a driving licence)
We also had the Malicious Damage Act 1861 : Placing Wood, &c. on Railway with Intent to obstruct, or overthrow any Engine, &c
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/97/crossheading/injuries-to-railway-carriages-and-telegraphs-placing-wood-c-on-railway-with-intent-to-obstruct-or-overthrow-any-engine-c/enacted35
Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously put, place, cast, or throw upon or across any Railway any Wood, Stone, or other Matter or Thing, or shall unlawfully and maliciously take up, remove, or displace any Rail, Sleeper, or other Matter or Thing belonging to any Railway, or shall unlawfully and maliciously turn, move, or divert any Points or other Machinery belonging to any Railway, or shall unlawfully and maliciously make or show, hide or remove, any Signal or Light upon or near to any Railway, or shall unlawfully and maliciously do or cause to be done any other Matter or Thing, with Intent, in any of the Cases aforesaid, to obstruct upset, overthrow, injure, or destroy any Engine, Tender, Carriage, or Truck using such Railway, shall be guilty of Felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for. Life or for any Term not less than Three Years,—or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour, and, if a Male under the Age of Sixteen, with or without Whipping.
Malicious Damage act 1861: Obstructing Engines or Carriages on Railways
36 Whosoever, by any unlawful Act, or by any wilful Omission or Neglect, shall obstruct or cause to be obstructed any Engine or Carriage using any Railway, or shall aid or assist therein, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding: Two Years, with or without Hard Labour.
It seems apparent to me, that for example... taking into account that an illegal sign or signal.. including an illegal road sign or marking IS classed as "an obstruction" in the road, in law (see traffic signs manual chapters 1-5) as proof
youtu.be/eDJs73TpVv0 Then, the fact there is evidence that obstructions have been placed on purpose & drivers have been mislead on purpose, and that money, Fixed penalty fines have been benefitted from & drivers placed at a loss of driving licences as a result of this, and Highways England offices, such as Bedford Highways England office have lied and given false evidence about Traffic regulation orders & signage placement (At the A1 Beeston, Sandy) for example with the 50mph speed limit.. Even in light of (proved) road signage errors reported and confirmed all across the UK.. which the Police Chief officer and Crown Prosecution service have a very large number of cases concerning & the DVLA & Highways England have a very large number of complaints about... The offences in the above sited laws.. would amount to very serious crime involving placement of illegal road signage in connection with road traffic enforcement sites. Only that apparently the current Government, though making a lot of money & revenue from the proceeds of such Fixed Penalty notices & at the loss to the public of driving licences.... the government have "changed the law" and manipulated it so that is is now quite difficult to find in law "the offences" concerned. in fact the government may have been attempting to "protect" their Highways workers & management who have been collaborating to plan & place signage in illegal & misleading ways. (proved). And actions such as those of MP Andrew Jones, the Previous Secretary of State.. have been to change & remove legislation concerning the placement of Road signs (Such as the DFT 2016 TSRGD circular) to in effect.. get themselves out of trouble.
So, with this in mind.. it is no wonder there is a serious problem with road signage, considering that the public have been deprived of laws & means to protect & enforce its lawful placement & maintenance (unless it has been proved to have been unlawful) Which I have proved. Then it can be collected and added to evidence. Which is what I have been doing for the last 5 or so years.
Importantly, I must add that if I take group litigation action (with help from a large number of other drivers), after already having proven the road signage (unlawful) by complaint the local government authority, when I have already (proven) the road signs illegal by Civil dispute meditation.. It will be very concerning to the rest of the litigation group whom have been effected by those road signs..(received fixed penalty notices) As to why they had to resort to group litigation action to resolve this matter when really the authorities are under legal obligation to co-operate to remedy the matter. Not to make up excuses and claim policy or procedure excuses as an attempt to avoid whistle blowing, or making representations following serious complaints, which would add up to gross misconduct in public office, a perversion of the course of justice and fraud by giving false accounts. Particularly a false account of an ability to act using an excuse.
FIXED PENALTY NOTICES ISSUED BY THE CHIEF POLICE OFFICER THAT CONTAIN ERRORS OR WHERE THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS BEEN INFORMED OF ROAD SIGNAGE WHICH HAS BEEN PROVED ILLEGAL AND AN OBSTRUCTION TO DRIVING.
Reasons why a fixed penalty notice is "invalid" if it contains a Stated road. And that road has already, through Civil dispute, already been (proved) to have been unlawfully signed. And the secretary of state has been notified by the relevant authorities (required) And the Secretary of state is required to give guidance of this to the chief Police officers of the local areas effected.
if there is any errors on the fixed penalty notice itself.. With:
1. Vehicle registration number. And registration particulars, including class. Weight or another issue..
2. Any other details or description, such as the speed limit or traffic regulation order which the vehicle was in contravention of. (offence)
3. The sited road itself and location. for example: (A49 BETWEEN SANDFORD AVENUE AND SWAINS MEADOW, CHURCH STRETTON, SHROPSHIRE, UNITED KINGDOM)
Then the fixed penalty notice is void anyway..
The police are required to check the registration plate and investigate the vehicle owner and identify the vehicle keeper.. And identification of class and speed limit. Just as much as the police are responsible for the correct offence being issued on the fixed penalty notice.. Or else it is void.
And it is fact that in relation to 3. Above... The police are indeed responsible not only for making certain the fixed penalty notice contains the correct offence site location / road.. But that the site is in fact enforceable and lawfully signed. From guidance given by the Secretary of State to ensure uniformity in the "legality" and up to date lawfulness of the enforcement. Going by "proved" information's the Secretary of State has been provided with (required by law)
All information this police are responsible for checking and monitoring.
There is no law to say a driver did or did not notice any road signs. The fact that( unlawful signage) effecting the road is an obstruction to driving and is unlawful.. bears to significance to case specific matters or arguments. It is a (all encompassing) legal effect on the road itself. Not over individual drivers independently. Which is why it is immaterial of if a court convicted a driver or if the driver accepted a conditional offer from a Chief officer of police. All and any "endorsement(thus conviction) according to the Road Traffic offenders act 1988, is VOID. If there are issued identified with the Fixed penalty. Namely.. THE SITED ROAD LOCATION ON THE NOTICE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE, AND THAT HAS BEEN DULY RECORDED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WHO DULY MUST ISSUE GUIDANCE TO ENSURE UNIFORMITY TO THE CHIEF POLICE OFFICER.
At Church Stretton,
The signage being deceptive of the speed limit by being from the previous speed limit configuration is an obstruction.
A court does not decide if it is or if it is not. The Local council decide if it is an obstruction & unlawful. And if it is thus, it is put to remedy. (with official action)
This is all information provided in the traffic signs manuals part of the published prescription requirements of sign use. It does not need to be proved or disproved. It is the reason why the drivers cannot be convicted by court. It is not a Not a defence. It merely explains why the law exists that drivers cannot be convicted. It is not a defence. it is the reasoning behind the law itself. To justify that law.
All a magistrates court would need to do is recognize that signage was not lawful. It is in fact the Local authority who are responsible for maintaining & correcting the road signs & everything concerning as to if those signs need correcting or not. The Local Council authority is, competent to decide and act. Through Civil action of any kind. Be it by Mediation, or if needs be a County Court. But if the council has acted without need for court actions.. Then it is not necessary.
Also, if there is enough evidence to show this is a widespread problem (which I have found it to be) then the Local council & Highways England should be liable to report it to the Chief police officer. And if the Chief Police officer does not investigate or fails to investigate.. then it may well be that the Public (group) may need to bring Criminal charges against the Chief Police officer Similar charges as were law in effect like The Criminal Law Act 1967 section 5. Penalties for concealing offences or giving false information
I request that this matter is sent to the professional standards department, And I strongly believe that the Secretary of State MUST act to direct through adequate guidance to remedy the VOID fixed Penaltys which have been un-uniformly issued against drivers on the A49.
And the Crown Prosecution service code of conduct should also dictate such similar action as required, because the defendants were not & are not liable to be convicted for offences at that road site following the Road signs being proved illegal for the period they were found not to be lawful.
