Summons - already accepted S59 at the roadside

[johnwilliams77]

kiethton said:

Now really considering it - only thing is I have no cash for this or the fine :/

What's the likely cost of mitigation? Have about £300 total for everything really, can get to a declarable net weekly income of £200

Seriously, do it. Find the cash. You said you are getting a bonus use it or borrow from. Family or friend.
They will allow you to pay the fine in instalments.

[SS2.]

wibblebrain said:

I'm amazed at the high proportion of self-righteous twunts that feel they should vent their spleen even when the OP acknowledges their fault.

A few years ago and I would have been too.

These days, however, it's simply par for the course.

[Biker 1]

wibblebrain said:

This^^

I'm amazed at the high proportion of self-righteous twunts that feel they should vent their spleen even when the OP acknowledges their fault.

Yeah - +1 on that. The last thing one wants is to come over all 'BRAKE'
Fair play on the flak absorption.

I think the OP is in deep st though, & the BIB are not in the mood to be lenient by the sound of their report....

[LocoCoco]

kiethton said:

Only issue is they've described the situation completely wrong, repeating the bullying cars out of the way which is complete and utter bks. I will plead guilty to the speeding but don't want this crap affecting the fine/sanction.

Ill have to write a statement where it'll be set true but know that it's one word versus the other - fuming

Had this happen to me before, almost exactly. I thought that since I hadn't done what they said and it was only my word vs the copper's that there was no way I could get found guilty. Anyways, I got convicted on nothing more than the word of the policeman, I still regret not hiring a lawyer back then.

On behalf of all the people that have posted just to have a pop at you OP, I'd like to thank you, everybody loves being right and by creating this thread you threw a nice underarm pitch which even the worst hitter could safely smash for a home run.

Good luck in your case.

[surveyor_101]

LocoCoco said:

Had this happen to me before, almost exactly. I thought that since I hadn't done what they said and it was only my word vs the copper's that there was no way I could get found guilty. Anyways, I got convicted on nothing more than the word of the policeman, I still regret not hiring a lawyer back then.

On behalf of all the people that have posted just to have a pop at you OP, I'd like to thank you, everybody loves being right and by creating this thread you threw a nice underarm pitch which even the worst hitter could safely smash for a home run.

Good luck in your case.

I would suggest if the police went believed they can't do their job.

It's unlikely but not improbable that the officer lied, what benefit to him would stitching you up be? Is it heavily modified car? Are you saying this is the first time the police have had cause to warn or issue you section 59, in all the cases I have know it's been after 1 or 2 warning as and section 59 note on the pnc.

[LocoCoco]

surveyor_101 said:

LocoCoco said:

Had this happen to me before, almost exactly. I thought that since I hadn't done what they said and it was only my word vs the copper's that there was no way I could get found guilty. Anyways, I got convicted on nothing more than the word of the policeman, I still regret not hiring a lawyer back then.

On behalf of all the people that have posted just to have a pop at you OP, I'd like to thank you, everybody loves being right and by creating this thread you threw a nice underarm pitch which even the worst hitter could safely smash for a home run.

Good luck in your case.

I would suggest if the police can't believed they can't do their job.

It's unlikely but not impossible that the officer lied, what benefit to him would stitching you up be? Is it heavily modified car? Are you saying this is the first time the police have had cause to warn or issue you section 59, in all the cases I have know it's been after 1 or 2 warning as and section 59 note on the pnc.

I don't believe that I was stitched up, more of a mistake, the cop thought he saw something that didn't happen. I just always thought that if I hadn't done something, it would be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I had. This is false.

Edited by LocoCoco on Tuesday 12th July 12:09

Edited by LocoCoco on Tuesday 12th July 12:10

[surveyor_101]

LocoCoco said:

I don't believe that I was stitched up, more of a mistake, the cop thought he saw something that didn't happen. I just always thought that if I hadn't done something, it would be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I had. This is false.

Edited by LocoCoco on Tuesday 12th July 12:09

Edited by LocoCoco on Tuesday 12th July 12:10

Dash cam footage my of helped,

[LocoCoco]

surveyor_101 said:

LocoCoco said:

I don't believe that I was stitched up, more of a mistake, the cop thought he saw something that didn't happen. I just always thought that if I hadn't done something, it would be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I had. This is false.

Edited by LocoCoco on Tuesday 12th July 12:09

Edited by LocoCoco on Tuesday 12th July 12:10

Dash cam footage may have helped.

You are spot on! Unfortunately the police car conveniently didn't save any video of the incident when I asked. I would have needed a camera pointing at myself or just the balls to pick holes in the policeman's statement to prove my innocence. The policeman only needed to tell the magistrate what he thought I had done to prove my guilt.

Sorry for derailing the thread, was just trying to make the point to OP that he needs to take the bullying accusation seriously even if it didn't happen at all.

[FiF]

LocoCoco said:

Sorry for derailing the thread, was just trying to make the point to OP that he needs to take the bullying accusation seriously even if it didn't happen at all.

Exactly so. Only the OP and the officer know the circumstances and the conditions / traffic situation. There was a lot of discussion centreing around the numbers and perceived circumstances from people who were not there.

If something happened in addition to a simple x mph vs limit situation, and it appears it has, then the OP has to recognise that the way he saw it is significantly different from the way the officer saw it, and therefore will present his evidence to show his view in the worst possible light for the OP.

The OP seems keen, understandably, to be in a position to work the system so that he gets and can deal with the incoming punishment for a conviction as well as he can. In my opinion his efforts would be best spent getting proper advice and help on presenting his case and mitigation that his view of the situation was not that presented by the prosecution.

[kiethton]

FiF said:

would be best spent getting proper advice and help on presenting his case and mitigation that his view of the situation was not that presented by the prosecution.

In progress (hopefully)

[Reg Local]

OP, when you get your licence back, come and see me for 1/2 a day and I'll make sure you stay safe and keep your licence intact in future.

[kiethton]

Reg Local said:

OP, when you get your licence back, come and see me for 1/2 a day and I'll make sure you stay safe and keep your licence intact in future.

Thanks for the offer - will likely take you up on that

[KevinCamaroSS]

kiethton said:

Now really considering it - only thing is I have no cash for this or the fine :/

What's the likely cost of mitigation? Have about £300 total for everything really, can get to a declarable net weekly income of £200

How will you get that down to £200 if your payslip says something else?

[4x4Tyke]

vonhosen said:

Nothing to stop a S59 & summons both being issued.
In fact a lot here will argue there shouldn't be a S59 without a summons on principal.

It is the law, not a principal.

Section59 said:

Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which—

(a)contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and

(b)is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,

he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).

Which allows the constable to issue the Section 59 warning which is set out in subsection 4

Section59 said:

(4)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.

So the vehicle could be seized in the future if a section 59 offence re-occurs.

[kiethton]

Fines are done on net weekly income, very easy to get the right result via salary sacrifice/one-off SIPP contribution

I do oppose the S59, it's a penalty - with the statement now saying what it does I'll be in-effect penalised twice for the same thing, had the comment been omitted it would be fair.

[Marvib]

scubadude said:

kiethton said:

only problem is the laws here seem to treat speeding worse than most other things.

Do you know why? Because it is cut and dried.

Driving without due care is a judgement call for an Officer, Reckless Endangerment- judgement etc...

109 in a 70? Laser, Radar or paced = Black and White law breaker, cannot be denied.
Its made worse by the fact you have the Speedometer 2ft in front of your face... How can you not know you are 55% over the limit? Either you are Drunk/Drugged or Stupid, you don't accidentally go that fast.

If you break a rather obtuse unknown law by accident- Mowing in the Nude after 8pm in Hammersmith? You could be excused as unfortunate... Everyone knows the NSL is 70mph, so you are a full on chump for trying to dodge it or suggesting its unfairly punished.

Just MTFU and take the pain then do max 80mph like everyone else and the Fuzz will ignore you.

You say it's "cut and dried" and then say drive at 80 and the fuzz will ignore you....doesn't sound cut and dried to me.

[stewjohnst]

kiethton said:

Came up behind a couple of cars, one of which pulled into my lane to overtake another. I slowed, it completed its overtake, pulled in and I carried on - nothing more than that.

I'd suggest the issue you have is that as you state the tug happened immediately after you accelerated back up to speed (and then some) after the above it would look for all the word like this.

A car misjudges your closing speed (not surprising at 25mph over limit) and pulls out into your lane to overtake. You say you slowed down but did you slow down with a decent gap (2 second rule?) or did you gradually decelerate and end up right up his chuff by the time he'd finished his move and pulled back in before accelerating back up to 100+?

Not being sat in the car with you and being aware of your zen like serenity during the manoeuvre, it's not unreasonable for plod to deduce you were aggressively tailgating to get past.

[Pete317]

stewjohnst said:

kiethton said:

Came up behind a couple of cars, one of which pulled into my lane to overtake another. I slowed, it completed its overtake, pulled in and I carried on - nothing more than that.

I'd suggest the issue you have is that as you state the tug happened immediately after you accelerated back up to speed (and then some) after the above it would look for all the word like this.

A car misjudges your closing speed (not surprising at 25mph over limit) and pulls out into your lane to overtake. You say you slowed down but did you slow down with a decent gap (2 second rule?) or did you gradually decelerate and end up right up his chuff by the time he'd finished his move and pulled back in before accelerating back up to 100+?

Not being sat in the car with you and being aware of your zen like serenity during the manoeuvre, it's not unreasonable for plod to deduce you were aggressively tailgating to get past.

If my experience is anything to go by, it's more likely the case that he expected the other person to complete their overtake in good time and so he wouldn't have had to slow down much, if at all - but instead they took their time about it and stayed out for far longer than necessary.
It seems some people are so desperate to maintain their speed that they refuse to slow down a bit and wait a few seconds for the other car to pass, but feel no compunction in causing other traffic to slow down a lot.

[anonymous-user]

4x4Tyke said:

vonhosen said:

Nothing to stop a S59 & summons both being issued.
In fact a lot here will argue there shouldn't be a S59 without a summons on principal.

It is the law, not a principal.

Section59 said:

Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which—

(a)contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and

(b)is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,

he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).

Which allows the constable to issue the Section 59 warning which is set out in subsection 4

Section59 said:

(4)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.

So the vehicle could be seized in the future if a section 59 offence re-occurs.

He's saying that some people think S.59 shouldn't be used unless an offence can be 'proven' alongside e.g. due care.

[FiF]

La Liga said:

4x4Tyke said:

vonhosen said:

Nothing to stop a S59 & summons both being issued.
In fact a lot here will argue there shouldn't be a S59 without a summons on principal.

It is the law, not a principal.

Section59 said:

Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which—

(a)contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and

(b)is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,

he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).

Which allows the constable to issue the Section 59 warning which is set out in subsection 4

Section59 said:

(4)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.

So the vehicle could be seized in the future if a section 59 offence re-occurs.

He's saying that some people think S.59 shouldn't be used unless an offence can be 'proven' alongside e.g. due care.

Not wishing to turn the thread into a S59 thread but the reason that attitude arises is because of allegations regarding possible misuse of S59 where evidence of behaviour contrary to S3/S34 was somewhat sketchy, or for offences where other perfectly good legislation exists but evidence again insufficient. Couple that with no judicial oversight other than a police complaint gave rise to concerns.

Against that the police needed powers to stop the activity at the time of the offence as opposed to a six month wait for a court appearance. Remember S3 offences didn't used to be capable of being dealt with by a fixed penalty issue.

So bearing in mind I'm making no judgement of the OP situation as I wasn't there, but in principle I'd argue this isn't double punishment but proper use of the system. Report on summons for the offence, plus issue S59 to stop the behaviour and put a sanction on place if repetition before court date.

Just my 2 pence.