Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters

[Zeeky]

I would suggest that a law that authorises a Police Officer to require a driver to stop and a failure to comply is both a criminal offence and may result in reasonable force being used to make the driver comply, does give a Police Officer the power to stop a vehicle. If that isn't the exercise of power I do not agree with your definition of power.

[Variomatic]

Zeeky said:

I would suggest that a law that authorises a Police Officer to require a driver to stop and a failure to comply is both a criminal offence and may result in reasonable force being used to make the driver comply, does give a Police Officer the power to stop a vehicle. If that isn't the exercise of power I do not agree with your definition of power.

The (possible) problem is that S.163 doesn't actually mention any power to stop - it only says that the driver must comply if told to. generally speaking, legislation that confers a power on omeone has wording such as:

"ABC may [whatever the power is]" and then (possibly) list circumstances in which that power may be applied.

The example I gave in that post hopefully shows the difference:

If I receive a fine from XYZ magistrates court then I must pay that fine. That is a duty I have (like the duty to stop if required)

However, that duty does not give XYZ magistrates court any power to issue a fine. They must rely on powers granted elsewhere in order to do that.


Arguing the S.163 point ad absurdum, if a police officer wants to stop me in order to beat me senseless because he's in a bad mood that day then I have to stop for him according to S.163. But I don't see any way that section confers a power on him to stop me for that purpose.

Say, for example, he stopped me for that reason but had misjudged things. I overpower him then get away without injury. I'm pretty sure that, when I make a complaint, misuse of his powers will be somewhere in the mix of things he's in trouble for.

Edited by Variomatic on Saturday 26th April 11:33

[Zeeky]

Variomatic said:

...Arguing the S.163 point ad absurdum, if a police officer wants to stop me in order to beat me senseless because he's in a bad mood that day then I have to stop for him according to S.163. But I don't see any way that section confers a power on him to stop me for that purpose.

He would not be able to rely on S163 to stop you for that purpose. I don't see your point. If he suspects you of having committed an offence, and failing to stop is an offence, do you expect him to make a note of your number plate and report you?

[Variomatic]

Zeeky said:

He would not be able to rely on S163 to stop you for that purpose. I don't see your point. If he suspects you of having committed an offence, and failing to stop is an offence, do you expect him to make a note of your number plate and report you?

That is exactly my point in bold, and the reason I invented such an absurd example.

The common interpretation that S.163 confers a power to stop "for any reason" (this is even stated on the .gov website) clearly has limits, so the power isn't absolute. I'd assume that another, more likely scenario that would also be considered abuse would be repeated stops in order to harrass someone. Even though each individual stop "to check documents" might be legal, stopping every two miles for that reason wouldn't be.

So, if there are (and there clearly are) limits to the power to stop, what are they and where are they defined? There doesn't seem to be any legislation concerning them, hence my quetion about case law.


eta: In fact, the repeated stops to harrass scenario could be reasonably analogous to these bailiff stops. Each individual stop might be legal "to check documents etc", as the police justify in the bailiff operations, but if you could show that the real purpose was to harrass, then they wouldn't be. Similarly, if you could show that the real purpose for the bailiff operations was to facilitate the bailiffs rather than legitimate police enquiries, it's quite possible that S.163 wouldn't be enough to justify the stop.

Edited by Variomatic on Saturday 26th April 11:48

[Bigyoke]

I'm a little confused, are you saying that this -

163 Power of police to stop vehicles

(1) A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

(2) A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

(3) If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.

doesn't actually confer any power to stop a vehicle? or are you mixing up the power to stop a vehicle with the reason for stopping it. The reason[s] are unlikely to be completely defined in legislation as they will be many and varied and in some cases will not even involve the engagement of further Police powers, i.e. anything from stopping a car as the driver/occupants are suspected of robbing a Post Office to stopping a car to inform the driver that the road ahead is impassible and he/she may like to take an alternate route.

[Variomatic]

Bigyoke said:

I'm a little confused, are you saying that this -

163 Power of police to stop vehicles

(1) A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

(2) A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

(3) If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.

doesn't actually confer any power to stop a vehicle?

Basically yes - although I'm not saying "it doesn't", only that "it may not".

Look through other legislation that confers powers to compare. For example, PACE provides powers to stop and search:

S.1 Power of constable to stop and search prsons, vehicles etc conveys a power to search personas and vehicles, and to detain them - which includes stopping - for the purpose of that search. the power is expicitly stated:

PACE said:

(2)Subject to subsection (3) to (5) below, a constable—

(a)may search—

(i)any person or vehicle;

(ii)anything which is in or on a vehicle,

for stolen or prohibited articles [F1, any article to which subsection (8A) below applies or any firework to which subsection (8B) below applies]F1 ; and

(b)may detain a person or vehicle for the purpose of such a search.

So, that section creates a power to stop a vehicle for the purposes defined in that section. Similarly, S.27 confers a power to require fingerprints:

PACE said:

(1)If a person—

(a)has been convicted of a recordable offence;

(b)has not at any time been in police detention for the offence; and

(c)has not had his fingerprints taken—

(i)in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police; or

(ii)since the conviction,

any constable may at any time not later than one month after the date of the conviction require him to attend a police station in order that his fingerprints may be taken.

Go through any legislation, and that's the way that powers are granted - by stating that the person who is to have the power may do what the power allows.

There are other places where legislation imposes a duty on someone to comply with a power and S.163 of the RTA is one. Where a constable exercises a ppower to stop a vehicle, the driver has a duty to comply.

So, if a constable attempted to exercise the PACE S.1(2) power noted above but the driver refused to stop, the driver would be committing an offence under RTA S.163.

However, if we go back to the RTA for a minute, under S4 (driing or being in charge whilst under the influence of drink or drugs), S.4(1) creates the offence. The pwer to arrest for it (which by implication would include a power to stop the vehicle because tyou can't arrest someone when they're doing 70mph!) is explicitly stated under S.4(6)

So, again, if a constable tried to stop you because he suspected you were drunk, and you failed to stop, you would commit an offence undet S.163.



The point of that is that the wording of S.163 could reasonably be read to make failure to stop an offence when required to stop by a police power granted elsewhere without garnting any inherent power to stop in itself. In fact, I'd suggest that:

(a) the "plain English" interpretation would be just that,
(b) Police powers, where they exist, are normally required to be explicitly stated, and
(b) the fact that Parliament saw fit to provide specific, related, powers in other legislation supports that interpretation - otherwise there would be no requirement for those specific powers.




eta:

The British legal system is generally proscriptive towards the general population - it tells you what you can't do and, if it doesn't say you can't, then you can.

An essential effect of that is that State's (including the police) powers must be prescriptive - the law has to say what the State can do, and if it doesn't say they can, then they can't.

Otherwise, you could be arrested under an "it didn't say I couldn't" power for something that you were perfectly entitled to do in the first place, because it didn't say anywhere that you couldn't. That would make a complete nonsense of the law!

Edited by Variomatic on Saturday 26th April 13:34

[vonhosen]

You have looked at the part of Road Traffic Act 1988 it comes under haven't you?

RTA 1988 said:

Part VII Miscellaneous and General

Powers of Constables and other authorised persons
163. Power of police to stop vehicles.

[Variomatic]

vonhosen said:

You have looked at the part of Road Traffic Act 1988 it comes under haven't you?

RTA 1988 said:

Part VII Miscellaneous and General

Powers of Constables and other authorised persons
163. Power of police to stop vehicles.

Yes I have but the title doesn't, of itself, grant a power. You would expect a section titled like that to read something like this if it was intended to grant a power in and of itself, rather than define matters related to powers granted elsewhere:

[quote]
Power of police to stop vehicles.

(1) A constable in uniform may stop any vehicle for any reason in connection with his duties

(2)A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic officer].

(3)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F3or a traffic officer].

(4)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.

That would have the (generally assumed) effect of granting a power and creating an offence of ignoring it. It would, correctly, limit the power to stop vehicles to matters concerning police business. It's also how most, if not all, police powers are defined in other legislation:

State in the title what the the power concerns,
Say specifically what it is at the start of the section, and
Say when it's applicable (and, possibly, when it isn't).

For example, in PACE S.54(c) Power to retain articles seized:

PACE said:

(1)Except as provided by subsections (2) and (3), a constable may retain a thing seized under section 54B until the time when the person from whom it was seized leaves the police station.

(2)A constable may retain a thing seized under section 54B in order to establish its lawful owner, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence.

[...]

It's the part of sub-setion (1) highlighted that grants the power to seize articles, not the title of the section. You would (should) seize in accordance with PACE S.54(c)(1) or (2) as appropriate.

If those sub-sections didn't exist then that section (despite its title) would only specify certain matters in relation to the powers conferred by S.54(b) without conferring any further powers of seizure.

The fact that it isn't done that way in the case of S.163 suggests that it may not be what was intended. It may have been intended simply to specify further matters (the offence of failing to stop) in relation to any powers to stop granted elsewhere. In fact, that would be the plain English reading of it.

[vonhosen]

I think the title & what is written underneath doesn't require any further clarification.

[mph1977]

given the freewibble nature of the way the discussions going I'm surprised the mention of contracts and maritime law haven't raised yet ...

the s.163 power is a general one which to be invalidated there would have to be proof of malfeasence etc ( such as the love triangle example).

Edited by mph1977 on Saturday 26th April 19:36

[Variomatic]

mph1977 said:

given the freewibble nature of the way the discussions going I'm surprised the mention of contracts and maritime lkaw haven;t riased yet ...

the s.163 pwoer is a general one which to be invalidated there would have to be proof of malfeasence etc ( such as the love triangle example).

It's not "frewibble" as you put it - those guys are complete lunes. their argument in this sort of thing is well established and basically amounts to the fact that the person known as me hasn't contracted to any of this so, while you can stop my birth certificate, you can't stop me because I'm not me, I'm me.

This is an entirely different thing, questioning whether a section of legislation creates a "power" simply by having it in its title, but without specifying it within the text.

I don't know the answer to that, it's clear that some others thing the answer is "well, obviously, duhhh", but I don't see that as a particularly persuasive legal argument - especially when the legislation concerned could perfectly reasonably be read the way I'm suggesting.

My personal view is that you could probably read an implied power into it but, to do so without creating enormous problems, that implied power would have to be limited to legitimate police (and only police) reasons. Which wouldn't include "pretending" police reasons in order to facilitate a civilian debt recovery operation.

Hence my original question about whether there's any case law regarding the section.

[10 Pence Short]

mph1977 said:

the s.163 pwoer is a general one which to be invalidated there would have to be proof of malfeasence etc ( such as the love triangle example).

You have the burden the wrong way around. It would be for the party exercising the power to justify its use.

Considering the power is conferred upon a constable in uniform, it is safe to assume the reason for the stop must be a genuine Police purpose, rather than 'any' reason.

[Red Devil]

Going back to the issue of enforcement agents (as of 6th April bailiffs have a fancy new name) I found this link.
http://simply-wrong.com/new-bailiff-regulations-ap...

You might visit a friend who, unbeknown to you has an outstanding civil debt, and YOUR car could now be quite legally seized by an unscrupulous agent under the TCoG regulations.

Also the bit about the police actively assisting enforcement agents rather than just being there to prevent a BotP.

This government is either supremely incompetent or has some very nasty jackboot tendencies hiding under that shroud.

Edited by Red Devil on Saturday 26th April 22:44

[Snowboy]

Red Devil said:

Going back to the issue of enforcement agents (as of 6th April bailiffs have a fancy new name) I found this link.
http://simply-wrong.com/new-bailiff-regulations-ap...

You might visit a friend who, unbeknown to you has an outstanding civil debt, and YOUR car could now be quite legally seized by an unscrupulous agent under the TCoG regulations.

Also the bit about the police actively assisting enforcement agents rather than just being there to prevent a BotP.

This government is either supremely incompetent or has some very nasty jackboot tendencies hiding under that shroud.

Edited by Red Devil on Saturday 26th April 22:44

If we look through the law books there are a huge number of bad things that could be done, but they aren't done.
If a guests car is siezed I will stand side by side with you and protest against it.

But, if we're just talking about scare mongerers giving specific interpretations of the laws and using that to try and discredit the entire process, then I'm going to ignore that websites scare tactics and look at the intent of the legislation instead.

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

I'm going to... look at the intent of the legislation instead.

First look at what the legislation says. In this case it doesn't support stopping of motorists foe non Police purposes.

Your only refuge is the hope that the Police are stopping motorists for Police reasons and then, if they happen to ping the bailiff's ANPR, the bailiffs introduce themselves.

There is more than enough evidence that this is not the way it is happening.

[vonhosen]

10 Pence Short said:

Snowboy said:

I'm going to... look at the intent of the legislation instead.

First look at what the legislation says. In this case it doesn't support stopping of motorists foe non Police purposes.

Your only refuge is the hope that the Police are stopping motorists for Police reasons and then, if they happen to ping the bailiff's ANPR, the bailiffs introduce themselves.

There is more than enough evidence that this is not the way it is happening.

It doesn't matter when the ping happens if the Police are stopping for Police purposes.

[10 Pence Short]

vonhosen said:

It doesn't matter when the ping happens if the Police are stopping for Police purposes.

Indeed, but it would severely reduce the efficacy of the operation were the Police to be ambivalent towards the presence of the bailiff's ping when choosing who to stop. I would also say it's counter the evidence we've seen and heard.

Do you believe all the stoppees in this thread's scenario are being stopped for Police purposes?

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Sunday 27th April 07:56

[vonhosen]

10 Pence Short said:

vonhosen said:

It doesn't matter when the ping happens if the Police are stopping for Police purposes.

Indeed, but it would severely reduce the efficacy of the operation were the Police to be ambivalent towards the presence of the bailiff's ping when choosing who to stop. I would also say it's counter the evidence we've seen and heard.

Do you believe all the stoppees in this thread's scenario are being stopped for Police purposes?

I'd hope so, but I don't believe it matters how they are selected (or indeed the presence of the bailiffs or any other agency) as long as they are for that Police purpose.

[10 Pence Short]

In the interests of debate, a counter position to my own might be...

The bailiffs are equipped with a list of registrations where their enquiries show a discrepancy between the address/ keeper name held by the DVLA and the reality.

Then the Police could provide justification on the basis of investigating the discrepancy.

Whether the Police could then prevent the stopped from leaving in order to facilitate introduction to bailiff's is another matter.

[10 Pence Short]

vonhosen said:

I'd hope so, but I don't believe it matters how they are selected (or indeed the presence of the bailiffs or any other agency) as long as they are for that Police purpose.

So, to clarify, if the stoppee is subject to a bailiff's ping, yet the Police have no other reason to stop, you accept a stop under s163 would be unlawful in those circumstances?