Leighton v Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police.pdf
391.7 KB
Attached is a ‘Case Law’ judgment to use against any ‘Roadside Pirate’s 🏴☠️ 👮♂️ attempting to unlawfully detain a driver under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
All too often, barristers who know these powers do not exist. Still use them, to try and convince judges, to rule in their favour, as the barrister acting for and on behalf of the police attempted to do so in this case.
So just in case, the Pink Belt Barrister attempts to say that, because this judgment was in the County Court, it is not binding.
It is important to note, why such a statement is not accurate!
Her Honour Judge Belcher did not create New Law.
What she did do however, was confirm that whilst ‘Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1959’ has been repealed by ‘Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988’.
The Common Law position has not changed.
The Common Law position being. that there are no powers under ‘Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988’ to detain a driver!
So whilst a County Court judgment is not binding, her Honour Judge Belcher’s: ‘ratio decidendi’ ~ ‘Rule of Law’ is binding!
So if you, or someone close to you, has been detained under the “Road Traffic Act” as unfortunately still frequently happens.
You can use this judgment as your aid to sue the Police for False Imprisonment.
Indeed, this now suggests that the courts take the view that any Barristers/lawyers/solicitor’s attempting to use so called alleged ‘detention powers’ under ‘Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988’ on behalf of the police as a defence, is so hopeless, that it should be struck out and judgment awarded without even having to go to trial!
This is ‘Case Law’ which is invaluable!
However; I feel it’s important to mention, that we all must read through these posts in particular the attached PDF’s and in particular this judgement to get a better comprehension of exactly what is said within.
To often we take for granted what others say (hearsay) as truth, without checking and corroborating the facts for ourselves…!
All too often, barristers who know these powers do not exist. Still use them, to try and convince judges, to rule in their favour, as the barrister acting for and on behalf of the police attempted to do so in this case.
So just in case, the Pink Belt Barrister attempts to say that, because this judgment was in the County Court, it is not binding.
It is important to note, why such a statement is not accurate!
Her Honour Judge Belcher did not create New Law.
What she did do however, was confirm that whilst ‘Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1959’ has been repealed by ‘Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988’.
The Common Law position has not changed.
The Common Law position being. that there are no powers under ‘Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988’ to detain a driver!
So whilst a County Court judgment is not binding, her Honour Judge Belcher’s: ‘ratio decidendi’ ~ ‘Rule of Law’ is binding!
So if you, or someone close to you, has been detained under the “Road Traffic Act” as unfortunately still frequently happens.
You can use this judgment as your aid to sue the Police for False Imprisonment.
Indeed, this now suggests that the courts take the view that any Barristers/lawyers/solicitor’s attempting to use so called alleged ‘detention powers’ under ‘Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988’ on behalf of the police as a defence, is so hopeless, that it should be struck out and judgment awarded without even having to go to trial!
This is ‘Case Law’ which is invaluable!
However; I feel it’s important to mention, that we all must read through these posts in particular the attached PDF’s and in particular this judgement to get a better comprehension of exactly what is said within.
To often we take for granted what others say (hearsay) as truth, without checking and corroborating the facts for ourselves…!
2 comments
Log in to comment
I have been arrested and banged up twice by North yorkshire police without due process. for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
False speeding offences with flawed evidence. In other words their evidence is wrong. Postures showing my car on the roof of a house doing 37 mph.
It’s a joke and I intend to hold them accountable.
Oh and by the way my wife is dead because of them.
I’m so sorry to hear of your plight. Make sure you Hold the living man and or woman accountable for their actions. Not the officer or the corporation West Yorkshire Police.
Chief Constable is the living man john robin’s ( always address the living man in lower case).