Discussion
I think you'd be on a sticky wicket relying on such a convoluted circumstance. Is there case law with regards to convictions using the Mags Act and Sec 3 RTA?
Is there any evidence Parliament meant to include incitement type behaviour into Sec 59?
Do ACPO have guidelines regarding the use of Sec 59?
Is there any evidence Parliament meant to include incitement type behaviour into Sec 59?
Do ACPO have guidelines regarding the use of Sec 59?
Red Devil said:
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? 
Remember where section59 came from.
Some of it was about the off road lobby who were going out in a group to drive along green lanes. Some people didn't like this freedom.
If you've got a group of people going equipped to drive along a green lane, it might well apply to all of them rather than just the one they found on the green lane - but see mels post 3 pages ago
If you'veg ot a group of people meeting up for a custom car event or similar where theyre admiring each others cars as far as I can tell theres no section 59. If one of them starts revveing engine doing donuts and handbrake turns , the rest are only in the frame if they've aided abetted counselled or procured. Is it really likely to apply to all the rest or anyone?
10 Pence Short said:
I think you'd be on a sticky wicket relying on such a convoluted circumstance. Is there case law with regards to convictions using the Mags Act and Sec 3 RTA?
Is there any evidence Parliament meant to include incitement type behaviour into Sec 59?
Do ACPO have guidelines regarding the use of Sec 59?
Sec 44 Magistrates Court Act 1980 provides that it is an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure any summarily triable offence & that the offender is guilty of the like original offence (not another different offence).Is there any evidence Parliament meant to include incitement type behaviour into Sec 59?
Do ACPO have guidelines regarding the use of Sec 59?
Because of that I don't see it as a sticky wicket at all.
Rather than, as you contend (Sec 59 should specifically state if that should be the case for any dealings of Sec 3 under it), it should be the alternate case that if aiding & abetting etc doesn't apply for Sec 3 offences under Sec 59, that it should be specified as an exclusion in those particular circumstances. I don't personally see that it is.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th February 15:30
daz3210 said:
So the day I left my car at the Post Office (Pub off M1) at Wakefield, and went back to collect it only to find one of these meets in full flow could have attracted me a S59 just by being parked there could it?
Really is dangerous legislation this!
I'm not suggesting that in what I've written. There still needs to be reasonable suspicion by the officer & that test would need to be satisfied for it to be a lawful use of the legislation.Really is dangerous legislation this!
Red Devil said:
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.
Just that somebody can be guilty of a Sec 3 even if they aren't the one driving the car. The test required under the legislation applies (so I'm not condoning it in this case, I don't know what the officer is citing as grounds to satisfy the test).
The officer would need evidence of his reasonable suspicion that the person was committing the offence. Trying to give evidence that his mere presence gave reasonable grounds is in my opinion a sticky wicket.
The provisions in the Magistrates Act were not designed by Parliament to create a catch-all back door to non-triable offences.
Neither was Section 59 drafted to allow Police deal with serious RTA offences.
In your submission, everybody leaving or present in the car park at that time could be reasonably suspected and handed a section 59. I don't for one second think that standpoint could be sustained.
The provisions in the Magistrates Act were not designed by Parliament to create a catch-all back door to non-triable offences.
Neither was Section 59 drafted to allow Police deal with serious RTA offences.
In your submission, everybody leaving or present in the car park at that time could be reasonably suspected and handed a section 59. I don't for one second think that standpoint could be sustained.
10 Pence Short said:
The officer would need evidence of his reasonable suspicion that the person was committing the offence. Trying to give evidence that his mere presence gave reasonable grounds is in my opinion a sticky wicket.
I have clearly stated above that the reasonable suspicion test exists.10 Pence Short said:
The provisions in the Magistrates Act were not designed by Parliament to create a catch-all back door to non-triable offences.
Neither was Section 59 drafted to allow Police deal with serious RTA offences.
Aiding & abetting etc under the Magistrate's Court Act precedes Sec 59. If the legislators did not intend for it to apply in Sec 3 cases involving Sec 59, they needed to put it in the legislation. They didn't.Neither was Section 59 drafted to allow Police deal with serious RTA offences.
10 Pence Short said:
In your submission, everybody leaving or present in the car park at that time could be reasonably suspected and handed a section 59. I don't for one second think that standpoint could be sustained.
My posts above clearly set out that my contention is not what you claim at all. The test exists & evidence to support reasonable suspicion needs to exist.I've only interjected to dispute your apparent suggestion that aiding, abetting etc doesn't count. There is no basis in law to suggest that is the case, in fact the contrary. Aiding and abetting etc a Sec 3 is just as much a Sec 3 as it is for the principal offender & as such would fall under the scope of Sec 59. I'll say it again though (so it's clear) there would still need to be sufficient for the officer to form reasonable suspicion of aiding/abetting etc in relation to a Sec 3 offence being committed.
10 Pence Short said:
I would read the Section 59 form presented to the OP in relation to your reliance on the Mags Act. I'm not sure it supports you.
I'm not limiting it to the OP's case, in fact I've said I'm not saying it was issued correctly or not in the OP's case. I'm talking about the use of aiding, abetting etc as a principle in law.vonhosen said:
I'm not limiting it to the OP's case, in fact I've said I'm not saying it was issued correctly or not in the OP's case. I'm talking about the use of aiding, abetting etc as a principle in law.
I would argue the wording of that standardised notice precludes using the Mags Act to support Section 3 in the way you suggest.It may be at odds with the remedies available in statute, but it limits it all the same.
It's not just with reference to the OP's case, either. It appears to be a standardised wording and I'd wager it's a force-wide document, if not a country-wide wording.
10 Pence Short said:
I don't think you'd get anyone to run with aiding and abetting a Section 3 RTA to support issue of a Section 59 if that was their only shot.
It's possible to win the lottery, but it's no business plan.
I'd happily use aiding & abetting in other circumstances & for other offences where there is the required evidence & it fits, so why on earth wouldn't (or shouldn't) I with Sec 59 cases ?It's possible to win the lottery, but it's no business plan.
10 Pence Short said:
vonhosen said:
I'm not limiting it to the OP's case, in fact I've said I'm not saying it was issued correctly or not in the OP's case. I'm talking about the use of aiding, abetting etc as a principle in law.
I would argue the wording of that standardised notice precludes using the Mags Act to support Section 3 in the way you suggest.If it says a Sec 3 offence, aiding/abetting a Sec 3 is itself a Sec 3.
vonhosen said:
10 Pence Short said:
I don't think you'd get anyone to run with aiding and abetting a Section 3 RTA to support issue of a Section 59 if that was their only shot.
It's possible to win the lottery, but it's no business plan.
I'd happily use aiding & abetting in other circumstances & for other offences where there is the required evidence & it fits, so why on earth wouldn't (or shouldn't) I with Sec 59 cases ?It's possible to win the lottery, but it's no business plan.
(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 (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.
So the vehicle must be used to commit the S3 offence.
If you wish to rely on AACP as being a contravention of S3 because of S44 of Mags. Act then it follows that S59 requires the OP to use his vehicle to AACP another's commission of the offence. Thereby being guilty of the offence himself
If he arrived on foot and encouraged the offence he would be guilty of AACP but S59 would not apply as he had not used his vehicle in the process. Arriving with the car would be insufficient unless he was using the car as a means of committing the offence of AACP
Remember AACP does not apply to any part of S59 itself. Only S3.
Secondly,
The OP must use his vehicle to AACP the S3 offence in such a way that "is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.
It matters not if the actual driver of the vehicle is doing so as that requirement is not part of the S3 offence and as we know, S59 is not an offence so you can't AACP it.
So if OP uses his vehicle to AACP a S3 offence committed by someone else and the ACCP is carried out in a way that is in an of itself "causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public then assuming a court agrees with your analysis the power might exist.
Even so, how can anyone reasonably suspect that is the case just by someone driving to the scene and parking his vehicle there even if he gets out and shouts encouragement at the driver who is actually committing the offence?
Edited by Zeeky on Sunday 19th February 19:08
Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
10 Pence Short said:
I don't think you'd get anyone to run with aiding and abetting a Section 3 RTA to support issue of a Section 59 if that was their only shot.
It's possible to win the lottery, but it's no business plan.
I'd happily use aiding & abetting in other circumstances & for other offences where there is the required evidence & it fits, so why on earth wouldn't (or shouldn't) I with Sec 59 cases ?It's possible to win the lottery, but it's no business plan.
(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 (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.
So the vehicle must be used to commit the S3 offence.
If you wish to rely on AACP as being a contravention of S3 because of S44 of Mags. Act then it follows that S59 requires the OP to use his vehicle to AACP another's commission of the offence. Thereby being guilty of the offence himself
If he arrived on foot and encouraged the offence he would be guilty of AACP but S59 would not apply as he had not used his vehicle in the process. Arriving with the car would be insufficient unless he was using the car as a means of committing the offence of AACP
Remember AACP does not apply to any part of S59 itself. Only S3.
Secondly,
The OP must use his vehicle to AACP the S3 offence in such a way that "is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.
It matters not if the actual driver of the vehicle is doing so as that requirement is not part of the S3 offence and as we know, S59 is not an offence so you can't AACP it.
So if OP uses his vehicle to AACP a S3 offence committed by someone else and the ACCP is carried out in a way that is in an of itself "causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public then assuming a court agrees with your analysis the power might exist.
Even so, how can anyone reasonably suspect that is the case just by someone driving to the scene and parking his vehicle there even if he gets out and shouts encouragement at the driver who is actually committing the offence?
Again, In saying that I'm not expressing any opinion whether there was sufficient for the officer to reasonably suspect that in the OP's case.
There is an offence under Sec 59, but it's not applicable in this case because it relates to failing to stop.
Also it's that 'a' motor vehicle, not 'his' motor vehicle is being used. If he arrived on foot & AACP a Sec 3 by another in a motor vehicle, both the driver & he could get Sec 59.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th February 20:18
vonhosen said:
AACP a Sec 3 offence
Stop there.vonhosen said:
... that is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance etc
You cannot AACP that as it is not part of the offence. It is a qualification of the offence that is only relevant to S59 which is not an offence.So
vonhosen said:
& Sec 59 is applicable to you, is what I am saying.
...cannot be correct.vonhosen said:
Again, In saying that I'm not expressing any opinion whether there was sufficient for the officer to reasonably suspect that in the OP's case.
But there could never be reasonable suspicion that anyone could suspect someone of AACP unless they were using there vehicle to AACP the S3 offence. That is extremely unlikely and clearly wasn't the reasoning behind your assertion.vonhosen said:
Also it's used 'a' vehicle, not 'the' vehicle. If he arrived on foot & AACP a Sec 3 by another in a vehicle, both the driver & he could get Sec 59.
The vehicle must be used in his contravention of the S3 offence for S59 to apply to him. The fact that the driver is also contravening S3 in a vehicle is separate from the contravention that the OP commits. You can't mix S59 and S3. S59 is not an offence.Replace the S3 offence in the text of S59 with AACPing the offence and work on that. It is the AACPing that is the offence not the doing of the S3 offence.
(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) [aids, abets, counsels, or procures} a 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.
You are assuming that S44 means there is no difference between ACCPing an offence and committing an offence yourself. There is and the conviction will be for ACCPing the offence not committing the offence yourself.
Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
AACP a Sec 3 offence
Stop there.vonhosen said:
... that is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance etc
You cannot AACP that as it is not part of the offence. It is a qualification of the offence that is only relevant to S59 which is not an offence.Zeeky said:
So
It can, see above.vonhosen said:
& Sec 59 is applicable to you, is what I am saying.
...cannot be correct.Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
Again, In saying that I'm not expressing any opinion whether there was sufficient for the officer to reasonably suspect that in the OP's case.
But there could never be reasonable suspicion that anyone could suspect someone of AACP unless they were using there vehicle to AACP the S3 offence. That is extremely unlikely and clearly wasn't the reasoning behind your assertion.Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
Also it's used 'a' vehicle, not 'the' vehicle. If he arrived on foot & AACP a Sec 3 by another in a vehicle, both the driver & he could get Sec 59.
The vehicle must be used in his contravention of the S3 offence for S59 to apply to him. The fact that the driver is also contravening S3 in a vehicle is separate from the contravention that the OP commits. You can't mix S59 and S3. S59 is not an offence.Zeeky said:
Replace the S3 offence in the text of S59 with AACPing the offence and work on that. It is the AACPing that is the offence not the doing of the S3 offence.
(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) [aids, abets, counsels, or procures} a 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.
You are assuming that S44 means there is no difference between ACCPing an offence and committing an offence yourself. There is and the conviction will be for ACCPing the offence not committing the offence yourself.
In AACPing the offence you are charged with is the same offence as the principal i.e Sec 3 RTA(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) [aids, abets, counsels, or procures} a 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.
You are assuming that S44 means there is no difference between ACCPing an offence and committing an offence yourself. There is and the conviction will be for ACCPing the offence not committing the offence yourself.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th February 20:30
saaby93 said:
We still dont know what S3 offence the OP had crossed
As it's not a proper offence, outside the courts and only listed as Restricted on your security file is it only chief constables that can cancel?
I haven't been talking in relation to the OP's case (& have been at pains to point that out). Just that I don't see why Sec 59 can't be applied to AACPers.As it's not a proper offence, outside the courts and only listed as Restricted on your security file is it only chief constables that can cancel?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff