Can an off duty police officer give me a ticket?

[SS2.]

Mandat said:

Reading this, I understand that a prosection for the underlying s.3 or s.34 offence is required for the s.59 notice to be valid. Is this not correct?

No, actual prosecution of the alleged s.3 or s.34 offence is not a pre-requisite.

[daz3210]

Mandat said:

The Gree Lane Association said:

stuff

Reading this, I understand that a prosection for the underlying s.3 or s.34 offence is required for the s.59 notice to be valid. Is this not correct?

I didn't read it that a prosecution had to be going ahead, only that one could also happen.

[Mandat]

daz3210 said:

Mandat said:

The Gree Lane Association said:

stuff

Reading this, I understand that a prosection for the underlying s.3 or s.34 offence is required for the s.59 notice to be valid. Is this not correct?

I didn't read it that a prosecution had to be going ahead, only that one could also happen.

This is the bit that I am refering to:

said:

Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which contravenes Road Traffic Act Section 3 (Careless Driving) OR Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road) AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public, Section 59 can be used to:-

My view is that if there is a justifiable cause for a s.59 notice then surely a s.3/s.34 offence has also been commited. Taking it a logical step further; if the underlying s.3/s.34 office is not being pursued, then on what basis does the s.59 notice stand up on its own?

BTW, IANAL this is only my interpretation of the legislation.

[Exige77]

Another clarification: Does BIB have to have witnessed the transgression themselves in order to issue a S59 or is a "Report" from a member of the public enough ?

Thanks

Ex77

[Tango13]

SS2. said:

Yes - he wasn't warning you for 'speeding' as such, it was a warning for the manner of your driving which he perceived as 'causing, or being likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public'.

Emergency vehicles can cause all three when using their sirens, maybe we the public should start to complain about them using s59 as a basis for our complaints?






For the hard of thinking this is a tongue in cheek post and is not meant to be taken seriously

[blueg33]

Grrr S59 grrr

Police State style legislation IMO.

Sorry mini rant over. Don't want to divert the useful legal stuff posted here.

[Red Devil]

Tango13 said:

SS2. said:

Yes - he wasn't warning you for 'speeding' as such, it was a warning for the manner of your driving which he perceived as 'causing, or being likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public'.

Emergency vehicles can cause all three when using their sirens, maybe we the public should start to complain about them using s59 as a basis for our complaints?



For the hard of thinking this is a tongue in cheek post and is not meant to be taken seriously

Only if you're the one the ambiwlans has been called for or you're in the back of it.

[vonhosen]

Mandat said:

daz3210 said:

Mandat said:

The Gree Lane Association said:

stuff

Reading this, I understand that a prosection for the underlying s.3 or s.34 offence is required for the s.59 notice to be valid. Is this not correct?

I didn't read it that a prosecution had to be going ahead, only that one could also happen.

This is the bit that I am refering to:

said:

Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which contravenes Road Traffic Act Section 3 (Careless Driving) OR Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road) AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public, Section 59 can be used to:-

My view is that if there is a justifiable cause for a s.59 notice then surely a s.3/s.34 offence has also been commited. Taking it a logical step further; if the underlying s.3/s.34 office is not being pursued, then on what basis does the s.59 notice stand up on its own?

BTW, IANAL this is only my interpretation of the legislation.

There doesn't have to be sufficient evidence to prosecute for Sec 3 or Sec 34, just reasonable grounds for believing it was being committed. A reasonable belief can be mistakenly held & the Sec 59 warning is still valid.

[blueg33]

vonhosen said:

There doesn't have to be sufficient evidence to prosecute for Sec 3 or Sec 34, just reasonable grounds for believing it was being committed. A reasonable belief can be mistakenly held & the Sec 59 warning is still valid.

So the officer can be wrong, but your car can still be seized?

[vonhosen]

blueg33 said:

vonhosen said:

There doesn't have to be sufficient evidence to prosecute for Sec 3 or Sec 34, just reasonable grounds for believing it was being committed. A reasonable belief can be mistakenly held & the Sec 59 warning is still valid.

So the officer can be wrong, but your car can still be seized?

For the vehicle to be seized it will be two separate occasions in 12 months & if he had reasonable grounds for believing, it was correct legally. Just as if you have reasonable grounds for believing that someone is about to punch you in the face you can hit first & it be quite lawful & correct (even if they weren't actually going to punch you in the face).

[tenohfive]

George H said:

But if it was just my word against his, how can anything be proved?

That's a more general question that occupies no small amount of the courts time each year. There are many occasions where with an officers word against a member of the public, the officers account is accepted as proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Equally there are many occasions where an officers word is not accepted as proof. My understanding is that people's biggest problem with S59 however is that it isn't a court that decides if someone is in the right or wrong - unlike just about any other section of traffic or criminal law.

SVTRick said:

Would have been asked to leave my property and the ticket neatly folded and handed back to him, with a come back when you have evidence comment.

The officers account is his evidence. Or are you saying that witness accounts don't amount to evidence?

[Mojooo]

Mandat said:

My view is that if there is a justifiable cause for a s.59 notice then surely a s.3/s.34 offence has also been commited. Taking it a logical step further; if the underlying s.3/s.34 office is not being pursued, then on what basis does the s.59 notice stand up on its own?

BTW, IANAL this is only my interpretation of the legislation.

Presumably the point of this law is to allow a quicker way of delaing with troublemakers WITHOUT having to go to the hassle and expense of prosecuting them......?

If they HAD to prosecute them then they prob would have made seizure an option only on conviction.

[blueg33]

Mojooo said:

Presumably the point of this law is to allow a quicker way of delaing with troublemakers WITHOUT having to go to the hassle and expense of prosecuting them......?

If they HAD to prosecute them then they prob would have made seizure an option only on conviction.

Scary isn't it. Pass a law that means you can sidestep burden of proof and take the court and objective judgment out of the equation.

To my mind the whole point of the law is that you HAVE to prosecute someone to determine if they are guilty.

[vonhosen]

blueg33 said:

Mojooo said:

Presumably the point of this law is to allow a quicker way of delaing with troublemakers WITHOUT having to go to the hassle and expense of prosecuting them......?

If they HAD to prosecute them then they prob would have made seizure an option only on conviction.

Scary isn't it. Pass a law that means you can sidestep burden of proof and take the court and objective judgment out of the equation.

To my mind the whole point of the law is that you HAVE to prosecute someone to determine if they are guilty.

But it's not about guilt.
You can be arrested without being guilty & lose your liberty for a while. That's more serious than losing the use of your car for a short period.
The legislation is about nipping (& removing) a problem in the bud. You can often go & get your car back straight away, it's just it's been removed from the area.

[George H]

SS2. said:

Dwight VanDriver said:

Off duty indicates possibility of being in civvies.

Requirement under the Act is that it only applies to a UNIFORMED Officer....

Agree that only a constable in uniform can issue a s.59 warning, but plod in civvies could witness incident and then issue warning at a later date (when suitably attired)..

All he said to me is he was walking down the side of the road off duty, when I went past him a bit too fast for his likings.

He came round this morning in uniform to issue the warning.

Would he needed to have been working when he witnessed the event for it to stand?

[mph1977]

14-7 said:

The idea behind the legislation is a good idea but unfortunatley it is at times badly used.

The problem is the idea of driving without due care and attention can be subjective. One persons idea of driving like a idiot may not be anothers.

as is demonstrated by the amount of ignorant fools who moan about the 'failings' of advanced and/or emergency drivers ...

[tenohfive]

George H said:

Would he needed to have been working when he witnessed the event for it to stand?

No. Only when he actually issued the S59.

(You're no less of a witness whether you're wearing uniforms, civvies or a pink tutu.)

[George H]

So, I could just ring up the police about someone driving who I didn't like, and they would go round and immediately issue a S59 warning to whomever it was? Since it only requires one person to be supposedly upset or angered to justify giving a warning, surely it will make no difference if it's a police officer or a member of the public?

[Mojooo]

George H said:

So, I could just ring up the police about someone driving who I didn't like, and they would go round and immediately issue a S59 warning to whomever it was? Since it only requires one person to be supposedly upset or angered to justify giving a warning, surely it will make no difference if it's a police officer or a member of the public?

"Where an officer has reasonable grounds"

A complaint from a member of the public wouldnt be reasonable gounds on its own IMO unless it was backe dup with something.

[Mad Dave]

George H said:

So, I could just ring up the police about someone driving who I didn't like, and they would go round and immediately issue a S59 warning to whomever it was? Since it only requires one person to be supposedly upset or angered to justify giving a warning, surely it will make no difference if it's a police officer or a member of the public?

In my experience, BiB have a hugely higher tolerance to things off duty compared to on duty. When im driving to work i see loads of poor drivers, people driving whilst using their phones and/or people driving too fast, but they'd have to really stand out for me to follow it up. The majority of my colleagues are the same. You simply cannot deal with every offence 24/7, you'd have a nervous breakdown!

Consider this; out of all the dozens of cars he saw on his way to work, it was your driving which stood out from the rest sufficiently to warrant a visit - I'd suggest that that's rare, and you probably therefore deserved the s59. I can't be sure as I wasn't there, but that's my suspicion.