Section 59 for Speeding?
Discussion
... With me
Here’s the gubbins
Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 refers to vehicles being used in a manner which causes alarm, distress or annoyance. Where a vehicle is being used in this way, or otherwise amounts to careless or inconsiderate driving, a constable in uniform will have the powers set out in subsection (3) below. An example might be performing screeching 'handbrake turns' in a housing estate.The constable will also have these same powers where he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle has been used on any occasion in such a manner. The powers cannot be exercised unless the driver is BOTH using the vehicle anti-socially AND is committing either the section 3 or the section 34 offence. Someone driving in a way that might be considered anti-social but not committing either of these offences is not liable to having his vehicle seized, nor is someone committing a different motoring offence.
59(1) 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 (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).
59(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
59(3) Those powers are-
(a) the power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) the power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) the power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) the power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
Failing to stop the vehicle as per (a) of this subsection is a summary offence contrary to section 59(6) of the Act.
59(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 warning.
59(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 of the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
No doubt in my mind that the offences detailed fall woefully short of a Sec 59 warning.
You should get a letter explaining the nature of the warning within the subsequent period (I believe within 2 weeks in our force).
Might be worth checking force policy on Sec 59 warning letters, then waiting for that to arrive before registering a complaint. Then you would know precisely the nature of the warning.
Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 refers to vehicles being used in a manner which causes alarm, distress or annoyance. Where a vehicle is being used in this way, or otherwise amounts to careless or inconsiderate driving, a constable in uniform will have the powers set out in subsection (3) below. An example might be performing screeching 'handbrake turns' in a housing estate.The constable will also have these same powers where he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle has been used on any occasion in such a manner. The powers cannot be exercised unless the driver is BOTH using the vehicle anti-socially AND is committing either the section 3 or the section 34 offence. Someone driving in a way that might be considered anti-social but not committing either of these offences is not liable to having his vehicle seized, nor is someone committing a different motoring offence.
59(1) 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 (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).
59(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
59(3) Those powers are-
(a) the power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) the power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) the power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) the power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
Failing to stop the vehicle as per (a) of this subsection is a summary offence contrary to section 59(6) of the Act.
59(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 warning.
59(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 of the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
No doubt in my mind that the offences detailed fall woefully short of a Sec 59 warning.
You should get a letter explaining the nature of the warning within the subsequent period (I believe within 2 weeks in our force).
Might be worth checking force policy on Sec 59 warning letters, then waiting for that to arrive before registering a complaint. Then you would know precisely the nature of the warning.
Problem is IaHa that Plod, without enquiry before a Magistrates ,is starting to use elastic on S.59 by using the offence of straight forward speeding to justify the S.3 aspect. Can the public be persuaded that speeding falls within the definition of due care, i.e.
the standard of driving that would be expected of a reasonably prudent and competent driver IN ALL THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES (open road, no traffic etc)? If so then all speeding cases should attract the warning and eventual vehicle seizure?????
Where is the right of appeal to a Mags Court for S.59? None as far as I can see and only avenue open seems to be to the Rubber Heel Squad.
The intention of S.59 is good but it is terribly framed.
Can I ask a favour IaHa and I think it does not infringe Force policy etc. a poster here did ask what exactly can be expected in disclosure of evidence for a NG static unmanned camera offence. Other than photograph, certificates of accuracy, calibration, siting ???? I have been wracking my brain but cannot come up with anything being from a more civilised (cough cough) age and would also like to know.
dvd
(PS Any truth of the grapevine that Cumbria is to become a Sub Division of North Yorks?)
the standard of driving that would be expected of a reasonably prudent and competent driver IN ALL THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES (open road, no traffic etc)? If so then all speeding cases should attract the warning and eventual vehicle seizure?????
Where is the right of appeal to a Mags Court for S.59? None as far as I can see and only avenue open seems to be to the Rubber Heel Squad.
The intention of S.59 is good but it is terribly framed.
Can I ask a favour IaHa and I think it does not infringe Force policy etc. a poster here did ask what exactly can be expected in disclosure of evidence for a NG static unmanned camera offence. Other than photograph, certificates of accuracy, calibration, siting ???? I have been wracking my brain but cannot come up with anything being from a more civilised (cough cough) age and would also like to know.
dvd
(PS Any truth of the grapevine that Cumbria is to become a Sub Division of North Yorks?)
Police State here we come.
It saddens me no end that our beloved government, staffed with lawyers as it is, just CANNOT make a sensible law, at all, ever. The past eight years have seen a constant erosion of our liberty and ever more draconian legislation to deal with what are, to all intents and purposes, minor infractions.
We are in deperate need of a politician brave enough to stand up and say enough is enough. I hate to think of the kind of society that we are allowing to be built for our children to inherit.
It saddens me no end that our beloved government, staffed with lawyers as it is, just CANNOT make a sensible law, at all, ever. The past eight years have seen a constant erosion of our liberty and ever more draconian legislation to deal with what are, to all intents and purposes, minor infractions.
We are in deperate need of a politician brave enough to stand up and say enough is enough. I hate to think of the kind of society that we are allowing to be built for our children to inherit.
I too know of someone experiencing s59 woes at the moment.
Can anyone confirm the regulations governing the form of the 'warnings' ? ie does a verbal ticking off constitute a warning under s59, does the warning need to be in written form, is the accused required to sign anything stating a warning has been received ?
S59 appears to be one of Blair's poorly written knee jerk policies. Whilst I appreciate the law is intended to deal with the anti-social use of motor vehicles (which is commendable), the wording of the section is vague to say the least, very open to abuse and indicates that ANY vehicle can be seized on a whim... Another stealth tax ?
Can anyone confirm the regulations governing the form of the 'warnings' ? ie does a verbal ticking off constitute a warning under s59, does the warning need to be in written form, is the accused required to sign anything stating a warning has been received ?
S59 appears to be one of Blair's poorly written knee jerk policies. Whilst I appreciate the law is intended to deal with the anti-social use of motor vehicles (which is commendable), the wording of the section is vague to say the least, very open to abuse and indicates that ANY vehicle can be seized on a whim... Another stealth tax ?
No written warning is necessary as part of S59, but nice Policemen sometime follow up with writtne confirmation. The car and the person are warned (norty norty car) - so don't let your mate get S59'd in you car.
S59 is basically evil. There is no recourse to justice, and the powers are draconian and unbalaced. We rely on the good nature and judgement of the police who implement the law -- and by far and away the overwhelming majority are excellent in this regard - but we must now suspect them all of being corrupt for they have the power to be and without our suspicions and vigilance, may be tempted.
S59 specifically requires the driver to be driving without due care and attention, which the two instances posted above are not prima facia examples of. Is there any challenge on this basis?
S59 is basically evil. There is no recourse to justice, and the powers are draconian and unbalaced. We rely on the good nature and judgement of the police who implement the law -- and by far and away the overwhelming majority are excellent in this regard - but we must now suspect them all of being corrupt for they have the power to be and without our suspicions and vigilance, may be tempted.
S59 specifically requires the driver to be driving without due care and attention, which the two instances posted above are not prima facia examples of. Is there any challenge on this basis?
Dwight VanDriver said:
Can I ask a favour IaHa and I think it does not infringe Force policy etc. a poster here did ask what exactly can be expected in disclosure of evidence for a NG static unmanned camera offence. Other than photograph, certificates of accuracy, calibration, siting ???? I have been wracking my brain but cannot come up with anything being from a more civilised (cough cough) age and would also like to know.
dvd
(PS Any truth of the grapevine that Cumbria is to become a Sub Division of North Yorks?)
Can't add anything to your list DVD, off the top of my head. I've really no experience of unmanned cameras.
Re your rumour, I don't see us joining up with North Yorks. It'd cross the regional boundaries which they don't want to do. I think they still want regional assembles, and they want to centralise within these boundaries.
Could you imagine it, DUrham, North Yorks, Cumbria and Lancs Amalgamated Police.... DUNYCLAP!
I guess we'll just have to stick with the CLAP!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff