Track this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Information not held by Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to Armen Landragin on 19 January 2010.
Rejection by Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to jon on 4 March 2009.
All information sent by Department for Transport to christian gray on 3 April 2008.
Common Law Right to Travel
A Freedom of Information request to Department for Transport by Norman: Hinks
The request was partially successful.
Norman: Hinks
29 May 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Can you please confirm the following:
1) That the common law right to travel still exists;
2) When travelling in your personal conveyance of the day there is
no requirement for a license, insurance, road tax or MOT as it is
not covered by any statute such as the road traffic act.
Yours faithfully,
Norman: Hinks
Beverly Williams
5 June 2009
Dear Mr Hinks
Please see the attached letter.
Beverly Williams
Casework and Specialist Advice
Zone 1/D16
Policy and External Communications Directorate
DVLA
Tel: 01792 788577
GTN: 1213 8577
show quoted sections
Norman: Hinks
21 June 2009
Dear Beverly Williams,
Thank you for your reply. I am a little confused by some of the
content of your reply and respectfully ask for your clarification
on a couple of points, in order for me to act lawfully.
You clearly state that the common law right to travel is in place.
Can you explain where in law you base the next comment,'However, if
the travelling is to be done in/on a mechanically propelled vehicle
on a public road, the vehicle must be registered and licensed.' as
it appears to contradict the common law right to travel?
I am aware of the 'Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994' &
'Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994' which are both statutes
and as such only apply to those who give consent. (please refer to
Black's law dictionary for the definition of a statute if needed).
Are you suggesting that a statute overrides a Law?
Also the above 'acts' refer to a driver, which i understand is
defined as someone who engages in commerce on the highway, such as
a taxi driver.
Lastly, can you please clarify the contradiction between travelling
and driving for me?
Yours sincerely,
Norman: Hinks
Beverly Williams
23 June 2009
Mr Hinks
Please see the attached letter.
Beverly Williams
Casework and Specialist Advice
Zone 1/D16
Policy and External Communications Directorate
DVLA
Tel: 01792 788577
GTN: 1213 8577
show quoted sections
21/06/09 10:12 >>>
Dear Beverly Williams,
Thank you for your reply. I am a little confused by some of the
content of your reply and respectfully ask for your clarification
on a couple of points, in order for me to act lawfully.
You clearly state that the common law right to travel is in
place.
Can you explain where in law you base the next comment,'However,
if
the travelling is to be done in/on a mechanically propelled
vehicle
on a public road, the vehicle must be registered and licensed.'
as
it appears to contradict the common law right to travel?
I am aware of the 'Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994' &
'Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994' which are both
statutes
and as such only apply to those who give consent. (please refer
to
Black's law dictionary for the definition of a statute if
needed).
Are you suggesting that a statute overrides a Law?
Also the above 'acts' refer to a driver, which i understand is
defined as someone who engages in commerce on the highway, such
as
a taxi driver.
Lastly, can you please clarify the contradiction between
travelling
and driving for me?
Yours sincerely,
Norman: Hinks
show quoted sections
mark-william:baker left an annotation (26 June 2009)
ahh but remember equality is paramount before the law bev.so who are the government to tell another what to do especially on a legislated act given the force of law on the consent of the governed?i mean what if someone isnt a member of this apparently nameless society which noone seems to remember joining upto?or is this all related to our births where a certificate of birth was produced and needed to be traded as a security thus bringing the baby into the legal world to enact legislation upon it as a legal person(company) for a few measly benefits?thats really laughable if you have a sick sense of humour that is
Norman: Hinks
1 July 2009
Dear Beverly Williams,
Thank you for your reply and i note its contents. I would request
that you clarify the LAWFUL position.
You have quoted requirements of statutes, which are irrelevant to
the common law right to travelling in ones own conveyance of the
day, un hindered, without license or insurance etc... are they not?
The license as required by the statutes you quote are for 'driving'
and are irrelevant to the common law right to travel is it not?.
'Driving' is defined as engaging in commerce on the highway. i.e.
buying and selling. like a taxi or delivery driver for example, so
if one does not engage in commerce there is no need for any
license, or indeed any license available to travel as it would be
equivalent to requiring permission to engage in the lawful activity
of travelling?
Travelling is not defined.
Yours sincerely,
Norman: Hinks
John Cross left an annotation (2 July 2009)
summary of authority response: "I acknowledge that the common law right to travel still exists. However, if the travelling is to be done in/on a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road, the vehicle must be registered and licensed."
Beverly Williams
6 July 2009
Mr Hinks
Please see attached letter.
Beverly Williams
Casework and Specialist Advice
Zone 1/D16
Policy and External Communications Directorate
DVLA
Tel: 01792 788577
GTN: 1213 8577
show quoted sections
01/07/09 18:17 >>>
Dear Beverly Williams,
Thank you for your reply and i note its contents. I would request
that you clarify the LAWFUL position.
You have quoted requirements of statutes, which are irrelevant to
the common law right to travelling in ones own conveyance of the
day, un hindered, without license or insurance etc... are they
not?
The license as required by the statutes you quote are for
'driving'
and are irrelevant to the common law right to travel is it not?.
'Driving' is defined as engaging in commerce on the highway. i.e.
buying and selling. like a taxi or delivery driver for example,
so
if one does not engage in commerce there is no need for any
license, or indeed any license available to travel as it would be
equivalent to requiring permission to engage in the lawful
activity
of travelling?
Travelling is not defined.
Yours sincerely,
Norman: Hinks
show quoted sections
mark-william:baker left an annotation (11 July 2009)
im interested where these so called obligations come from
Jessica: Wheeler left an annotation (30 July 2009)
Surely a personal conveyance can only be that of the current day. Common law doesn't state means of propulsion, it could not, and as there is no awareness of what the future would hold when this was conceived.
Parliament state statute law is only there to uphold and ratify our common law. I'm sure the oath is to this effect.
I note US Judges are now upholding the common law right of travel. I consider them having written it down at the time when it was defined by English Law that they are showing us the true interpretation of English law.
If above all everything has to be seen to be equal above the law, and by whichever contract they have got you by birth or license, where's their side of the bargain? I can't see any balance being struck.
I have similar responses re: PCN. Refusal to answer points even when written as a legal notice, therefore absorbing them in contract to respond. Doesn't work!
Darkhorse21X left an annotation (4 February 2010)
The remedy exists in the use of the word vehicle. The Acts use the term vehicle in recognition of your common law right to travel and not in spite of it. They are protecting your common law right to travel. Blacks Law Dictionary clearly defines what vehicle means. A conveyance is defined as a means of transport. Transportation is defined in Blacks as a commercial activity.
Therefore, to be under the jurisdiction of the Act, there must be demonstrable proof that you are acting in commerce.
The crown must prove that you are acting in commerce to have jurisdiction over your actions. As long as they continue to use the word vehicle, you have remedy.
No statute can be written to abridge or restrict a pre existing right unless it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Act. As no such specificity exists in any "Motor Vehicle Act", then you can reasonably infer that your common law right to travel has not been infringed upon.
LET FREEDOM REIGN
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
mark-william:baker left an annotation (7 June 2009)
Link to this