Discussion
10 Pence Short said:
Make an official request to have the notice quashed, on the basis there is no evidence of the Sec.3 offence required to raise it.
For Careless there will have to be evidence that you were driving in a way that falls below that expected of a competent and careful driver. For Inconsiderate there will have to be evidence another road user was inconvenienced by your bad driving, in addition to any 'inconsiderate' driving.
Problem with S59 is there doesn't have to be any evidence. The driver doesn't have to breach 3 nor cause any distress. S59 is valid where distress may be caused and where there is believe of a section 3 offence.For Careless there will have to be evidence that you were driving in a way that falls below that expected of a competent and careful driver. For Inconsiderate there will have to be evidence another road user was inconvenienced by your bad driving, in addition to any 'inconsiderate' driving.
bluepolarbear said:
Problem with S59 is there doesn't have to be any evidence. The driver doesn't have to breach 3 nor cause any distress. S59 is valid where distress may be caused and where there is believe of a section 3 offence.
although that evidence for both halves has to be stated What belief is there that the OP was doing handbrake turns etc to be subject to a section 3?
daz3210 said:
What is the 'RESTRICTED' top anbd bottom all about? Does that mean we should not really see that?
It's a very low security classification. Probably because if the document was made public without the OP's redactions it could cause him some embarrassment.I should hope it's only considered restricted when filled in with personal data, an empty copy of that document should not be classified.
I would imagine, seeming a Sec. 59 is an allegation and nothing more, to publish a document and make it available to a third party, stating someone HAS committed offences, would be defaming.
Hence it's better to restrict it and use wording to make the poor recipient think they have already been found guilty of something.
Hence it's better to restrict it and use wording to make the poor recipient think they have already been found guilty of something.
bluepolarbear said:
Problem with S59 is there doesn't have to be any evidence. The driver doesn't have to breach 3 nor cause any distress. S59 is valid where distress may be caused and where there is believe of a section 3 offence.
The officer has to have 'reasonable grounds' to believe both the RTA offence and the public annoyance element. If the OP was part of a group, the officer is going to have to give an affidavit and/or give evidence of exactly what the OP was doing to substantiate those reasonable grounds.If they can, and the OP will know what he was or wasn't doing, crack on. If they can't, the OP has a right to challenge its issue.
I haven't spent any time looking for case law on Second.59- maybe some exists to give direction on it?
0000 said:
daz3210 said:
What is the 'RESTRICTED' top anbd bottom all about? Does that mean we should not really see that?
It's a very low security classification. Probably because if the document was made public without the OP's redactions it could cause him some embarrassment.I should hope it's only considered restricted when filled in with personal data, an empty copy of that document should not be classified.
HMG SPF said:
Criteria for assessing RESTRICTED assets:
• affect diplomatic relations adversely;
• cause substantial distress to individuals;
• make it more difficult to maintain the operational effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces;
• cause financial loss or loss of earning potential or to facilitate improper gain or advantage for individuals or companies;
• prejudice the investigation or facilitate the commission of crime;
• breach proper undertakings to maintain the confidence of information provided by third parties;
• impede the effective development or operation of government policies;
• to breach statutory restrictions on disclosure of information;
• disadvantage government in commercial or policy negotiations with others;
• undermine the proper management of the public sector and its operations.
• affect diplomatic relations adversely;
• cause substantial distress to individuals;
• make it more difficult to maintain the operational effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces;
• cause financial loss or loss of earning potential or to facilitate improper gain or advantage for individuals or companies;
• prejudice the investigation or facilitate the commission of crime;
• breach proper undertakings to maintain the confidence of information provided by third parties;
• impede the effective development or operation of government policies;
• to breach statutory restrictions on disclosure of information;
• disadvantage government in commercial or policy negotiations with others;
• undermine the proper management of the public sector and its operations.
Typical interpretation by other than central government said:
RESTRICTED Impact Level 3 (IL3)
Information or material that if compromised would be likely to:
• cause substantial distress to individuals;
• cause financial loss or loss of earning potential to, or facilitate improper gain or advantage for, individuals or companies;
• prejudice the investigation or facilitate the commission of crime;
• breach statutory restrictions on the disclosure of information (except the Data Protection Act which can be addressed with other impact statements);
• disadvantage government in commercial or policy negotiations with others; or
• undermine the proper management of the public sector and its operations.
Such information should not be disclosed to anyone who is not authorized to see it and/or does not have a strict need to know.
StreakyInformation or material that if compromised would be likely to:
• cause substantial distress to individuals;
• cause financial loss or loss of earning potential to, or facilitate improper gain or advantage for, individuals or companies;
• prejudice the investigation or facilitate the commission of crime;
• breach statutory restrictions on the disclosure of information (except the Data Protection Act which can be addressed with other impact statements);
• disadvantage government in commercial or policy negotiations with others; or
• undermine the proper management of the public sector and its operations.
Such information should not be disclosed to anyone who is not authorized to see it and/or does not have a strict need to know.
GC8 said:
The problem with 'reasonable grounds' is that they're not tested often enough, leading to a predispodition to abuse the powers that they give.
It's the mixing up of the two halves of the act that is the problemIf I have it right
the officer has to believe youre breaking section section 3 ie.e doing donuts handbrake turns revving engine etc.
AND
it has to be likely to cause annoyance to someone
So if youre doing handbrake turns in a busy shopping centre its satisfied.
if you're doing same in open countryside it could also cause annoyance so satisfied.
If you're just parked up, the first half fails so it doesnt matter if the second part someone 3 streets away the other side of the out of town shopping centre is likely to be annoyed.
Have a look where I quoted Mels post 2 pages back
http://pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 18th February 20:03
I'm not sure you've got the full picture on what section 3 includes, Saaby. You could drive inconsiderately in a way that inconveniences another driver (such as flash a driver in front of you to move out of the way, which they then do because of it) and you've a potential section 3 offence.
You don't need anything like doughnuts.
You don't need anything like doughnuts.
10 Pence Short said:
I'm not sure you've got the full picture on what section 3 includes, Saaby. You could drive inconsiderately in a way that inconveniences another driver (such as flash a driver in front of you to move out of the way, which they then do because of it) and you've a potential section 3 offence.
You don't need anything like doughnuts.
yes I know. But whatever it was would have to make the s59 offence.You don't need anything like doughnuts.
Parking up in a car park meeting up with your mates or people with an interest in a simlar marque isnt it. If one of them does the doughnuts theyre liable if the second half (likely to cause annoyance) is met, but not everyone else present. (although theres oldsoaks group cajoling - is that a separate offence?)
I get the feeling the 'is likely opinion' is being mistakenly applied to the first half.
s59 PRA refers to "using", s3 RTA refers to "driving". On the face of that, it would seem that it is not possible to commit an s3 RTA offence whilst parked with the engine off, and so s59 PRA would fail the first test. Otherwise, otherwise.
Any BiB care to comment, for example vh, who has been explicit in previous threads about the meaning of "using""?
Streaky
Any BiB care to comment, for example vh, who has been explicit in previous threads about the meaning of "using""?
Streaky
herewego said:
OP said “then drove out in gridlock” and “The police rightly gave a few idiots S59s (revving and beeping when in gridlock)”.
So he was driving and connected to those involved in the inconsiderate behaviour.
On that basis aren't there some other connected people issuing tickets that seem to have escaped lightly So he was driving and connected to those involved in the inconsiderate behaviour.
Show where it says connected people should be given s59s?
As far as I can tell it's only those doing the unneccesary revving and which is likely to cause offence, otherwise we're into the old tarring all with same brush. In Oldsoaks reference wouldnt the connected people would have to be cajoling the others into doing the revving. Surely just being there isnt enough
saaby93 said:
herewego said:
OP said “then drove out in gridlock” and “The police rightly gave a few idiots S59s (revving and beeping when in gridlock)”.
So he was driving and connected to those involved in the inconsiderate behaviour.
On that basis aren't there some other connected people issuing tickets that seem to have escaped lightly So he was driving and connected to those involved in the inconsiderate behaviour.
Show where it says connected people should be given s59s?
As far as I can tell it's only those doing the unneccesary revving and which is likely to cause offence, otherwise we're into the old tarring all with same brush. In Oldsoaks reference wouldnt the connected people would have to be cajoling the others into doing the revving. Surely just being there isnt enough
Replying to Herewego:
In which case the legislation would most likely be broadened to include those inciting or being associated with the behaviour.
My reading is that it doesn't make allowances for anything other than an individual being brought to account for their own specific actions.
I don't believe it would be enough for an officer to say he had 'reasonable suspicion' of a section 3 offence just because the OP was associated with others who were committing them or choosing to leave at the same time as them.
If I drive on a free flowing motorway at any particular time, I will be surrounded by people ignoring the speed limit. That would not give an officer reasonable suspicion that I was doing the same.
In which case the legislation would most likely be broadened to include those inciting or being associated with the behaviour.
My reading is that it doesn't make allowances for anything other than an individual being brought to account for their own specific actions.
I don't believe it would be enough for an officer to say he had 'reasonable suspicion' of a section 3 offence just because the OP was associated with others who were committing them or choosing to leave at the same time as them.
If I drive on a free flowing motorway at any particular time, I will be surrounded by people ignoring the speed limit. That would not give an officer reasonable suspicion that I was doing the same.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Sunday 19th February 13:28
herewego said:
The noisy ones wouldn't be showing off if there wasn't an appreciate audience. So it could be argued they were all in it together.
or would they be doing more if there was no-one else about? Presence of others reduced it?daz3210 said:
Let me get this right, you actually have to be driving to get a S59?
No. It seems enough for the officer to have belief. With some evidence to back it up as you dont want to convict someone who wasnt causing the nuisance.The OP said most people werent causing a nuisance but a few were when the event was tried to be closed, which probably doesn't count either! It's like that photograher guy who was arrested for taking photos, pushed down the stairs whereupon he swore so arrested for breach of the peace instead. All later dropped, if I have that right
10 Pence Short said:
Replying to Herewego:
In which case the legislation would most likely be broadened to include those inciting or being associated with the behaviour.
My reading is that it doesn't make allowances for anything other than an individual being brought to account for their own specific actions.
Similar argument for hundreds of people going to a night club. A few trouble makers, police called. They dont arrest everyone else thats at the event by association.In which case the legislation would most likely be broadened to include those inciting or being associated with the behaviour.
My reading is that it doesn't make allowances for anything other than an individual being brought to account for their own specific actions.
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 19th February 13:47
10 Pence Short said:
Replying to Herewego:
In which case the legislation would most likely be broadened to include those inciting or being associated with the behaviour.
My reading is that it doesn't make allowances for anything other than an individual being brought to account for their own specific actions.
I don't believe it would be enough for an officer to say he had 'reasonable suspicion' of a section 3 offence just because the OP was associated with others who were committing them or choosing to leave at the same time as them.
If I drive on a free flowing motorway at any particular time, I will be surrounded by people ignoring the speed limit. That would not give an officer reasonable suspicion that I was doing the same.
Could it not be argued that Sec 44 Magistrate's Court Act 1980 provides for those who aid, abet, counsel & procure to be treated as principals for a Sec 3 ?In which case the legislation would most likely be broadened to include those inciting or being associated with the behaviour.
My reading is that it doesn't make allowances for anything other than an individual being brought to account for their own specific actions.
I don't believe it would be enough for an officer to say he had 'reasonable suspicion' of a section 3 offence just because the OP was associated with others who were committing them or choosing to leave at the same time as them.
If I drive on a free flowing motorway at any particular time, I will be surrounded by people ignoring the speed limit. That would not give an officer reasonable suspicion that I was doing the same.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Sunday 19th February 13:28
I don't see a need for that to be specifically referenced for Sec 3 RTA under Sec 59, as it clearly applies in law for any case of Sec 3.
A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures a Sec 3 is guilty of.....a Sec 3.
vonhosen said:
A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures a Sec 3 is guilty of.....a Sec 3.
Are you saying that merely being in the vicinity means that person/persons is/are aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring? That is a very slippery slope. Unless something is done to halt this type of knee jerk legislation, which can be used for purposes beyond those it was brought into existence to address, it is just a matter of time before the state has every last one of us subject to its arbitrary whims.My father fought in two world wars to prevent such abuse of power. I'm glad he is no longer alive to see what we have become.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff