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?

[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)

[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.