Section 59 loophole?

[Timsta]

So, there I was, reading through the S59 legislation and something struck me. I have read it a few times, but must have missed it. Yes, sure we often think of S3 of the RTA as a qualifier, but I spotted something else.

S59 said:

A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless—

(a)he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and

(b)it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.

The way I read that, it has to be the same officer who gave the original warning. They can't just look on the system and seize a vehicle because of a previous warning.

Have I got that right?

[anonymous-user]

Where were you doing your donuts?

[SS2.]

Timsta said:

The way I read that, it has to be the same officer who gave the original warning. They can't just look on the system and seize a vehicle because of a previous warning.

Have I got that right?

Reading on..

s.59 PRA 2002 said:

(5)Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if—

(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;

(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;

(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or

(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.

[anonymous-user]

In other words, RTFM.

[Timsta]

Breadvan72 said:

Where were you doing your donuts?

Nah, I is a good driver, innit?

No, I was just perusing during a quiet spell at work. (Which is why I completely missed 5)

[14-7]

Timsta said:

The way I read that, it has to be the same officer who gave the original warning. They can't just look on the system and seize a vehicle because of a previous warning.

Have I got that right?

Are you serious?

If you are then technically, from the way you are reading the law, a female cannot commit burglary.

Theft Act said:

(1)A person is guilty of burglary if— .
(a)he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or .
(b)having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm

See, a female cannot commit the offence as it states he.

[Timsta]

14-7 said:

Are you serious?

If you are then technically, from the way you are reading the law, a female cannot commit burglary.

Yes, I was serious. No one is suggesting that you couldn't substitute she for he, however when they use 'he' they don't mean the organisation. However, if it weren't for the next clause then yes, I would have been right. So not as dumb as you would have thought.

[anonymous-user]

Ah, the old "I would have been right except for the fact that I was wrong" gag, eh?

[14-7]

Timsta said:

Yes, I was serious. No one is suggesting that you couldn't substitute she for he, however when they use 'he' they don't mean the organisation. However, if it weren't for the next clause then yes, I would have been right. So not as dumb as you would have thought.

When they say he they don't mean she then surely?

If it weren't for the next clause you would have been right, but you aren't and never were. Did you think you'd stumbled across some wonderful secret that everyone else had missed you cunning old thing you .

[anonymous-user]

He in a statute always means he or she, unless the contrary is specifically stated.

[daz3210]

But if the copper was a smooth mover, could he seize the vehicle on the basis he 'reasonably believes' such a warning has been given before, but actually in fact hasn't?

[WeirdNeville]

daz3210 said:

But if the copper was a smooth mover, could he seize the vehicle on the basis he 'reasonably believes' such a warning has been given before, but actually in fact hasn't?

Belief requires some factual or evidential basis. I.e. the marker on the car and driver.
You're talking about suspicion, which is much more wooly.

Well done to the OP - make sure you read the whole book (and amendments) before it's your turn in the dock next time, eh?

[streaky]

WeirdNeville said:

Belief requires some factual or evidential basis. I.e. the marker on the car and driver.
You're talking about suspicion, which is much more wooly.

Well done to the OP - make sure you read the whole book (and amendments) before it's your turn in the dock next time, eh?

In general, an officer has to have "reasonable suspicion" in order to "believe". This is constituted by a set of circumstances that would lead a reasonable (or trained) person to draw a logical conclusion that something is occurring or has occurred.

Streaky