Now the below was published in 2006 by a political party these are not my veiws but I think interesting reading. In no way shape of form written by myself!

Reversing the Burden of Proof

"The Times is reporting that proposals drawn up by the Home Office envisages a huge extension of fixed-penalty notices from early 2007.

They would apply to nearly 30 offences, including assault, threatening behaviour, all types of theft up to a value of £100, obstructing or assaulting a police officer, possession of cannabis, and drunkenness, the Times say the move, could remove 250,000 cases from the magistrates’ courts.

Unlike conditional cautions, the fixed-penalty notices do not require the offender to admit guilt, however an offender? Can go to court to contest it.


Given that the bill of Rights 1689 which is still one of the founding documents of the British State and is still statute law (as much as many would wish to ignore it).

Makes it clear "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".

Offering the right to go to court to contest a fixed-penalty notice is simply not good enough, it is in fact reversing the burden of proof, instead of a police officer having to produce evidence in court to prove that an offence has been committed, the accused becomes the offender with out any proof, and will have to appeal against the policeman’s verdict and prove that they did not commit the crime.

Over the past few hundred years we have fought for our protections and gradually these have been put in place. Now New Labour authoritarians want to remove the rights of people against summary and unfair justice, claiming it will free several hundred thousand cases from the courts.

The question is do we want quick summary justice or do we want to protect the people from an over oppressive state".