Discussion
vonhosen said:
In AACPing the offence you are charged with is the same offence as the principal i.e Sec 3 RTA
That is misconceived.Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
44.— Aiders and abettors.
(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence and may be tried (whether or not he is charged as a principal) either by a court having jurisdiction to try that other person or by a court having by virtue of his own offence jurisdiction to try him
It is a separate offence. Alike but not the same. Two identical bottles of milk are not the same bottle. They are two offences, not one.
It follows that S59 should be applied to each offence separately. Applying the requirements of S59 to one person's S3 offence when dealing with someone else's S3 offence is as absurd as it is illogical.
Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
In AACPing the offence you are charged with is the same offence as the principal i.e Sec 3 RTA
That is incorrect.Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
44.— Aiders and abettors.
(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence and may be tried (whether or not he is charged as a principal) either by a court having jurisdiction to try that other person or by a court having by virtue of his own offence jurisdiction to try him
It is a separate offence. Alike but not the same. Two identical bottles of milk are not the same bottle. They are two offences, not one.
It follows that S59 should be applied to each offence separately. Applying the requirements of S59 to one person's S3 offence when dealing with someone else's S3 offence is as absurd as it is illogical.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th February 22:17
vonhosen said:
Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
In AACPing the offence you are charged with is the same offence as the principal i.e Sec 3 RTA
That is incorrect.Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
44.— Aiders and abettors.
(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence and may be tried (whether or not he is charged as a principal) either by a court having jurisdiction to try that other person or by a court having by virtue of his own offence jurisdiction to try him
It is a separate offence. Alike but not the same. Two identical bottles of milk are not the same bottle. They are two offences, not one.
It follows that S59 should be applied to each offence separately. Applying the requirements of S59 to one person's S3 offence when dealing with someone else's S3 offence is as absurd as it is illogical.
They are separate offences based on different facts. The effect of what you are saying is the same as AACPing S59 which is not possible. You a getting around the impossible by conflating ACCping with actually committing the offence because of your misunderstanding of S44.
Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
In AACPing the offence you are charged with is the same offence as the principal i.e Sec 3 RTA
That is incorrect.Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
44.— Aiders and abettors.
(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence and may be tried (whether or not he is charged as a principal) either by a court having jurisdiction to try that other person or by a court having by virtue of his own offence jurisdiction to try him
It is a separate offence. Alike but not the same. Two identical bottles of milk are not the same bottle. They are two offences, not one.
It follows that S59 should be applied to each offence separately. Applying the requirements of S59 to one person's S3 offence when dealing with someone else's S3 offence is as absurd as it is illogical.
They are separate offences based on different facts. The effect of what you are saying is the same as AACPing S59 which is not possible. You a getting around the impossible by conflating ACCping with actually committing the offence because of your misunderstanding of S44.
It's one use of the motor vehicle & one instance of is, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance, but two separate cases of Sec 3 emanate from it & both have satisfied everything that is needed for Sec 59 to apply for both.
In relation to the AACPer's offence 'Was a vehicle being used in a manner that contravened Sec 3 ?'
It had to be for him to commit the offence in the first place - so CHECK
'Is it or is it likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance ?'
If it was for the driver it stands true for him too - so CHECK.
It matters not that it's not his car or him driving, there is no requirement in the legislation for that.
Sec 59 said:
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,
There is nothing in there that precludes the AACPers Sec 3 from attracting a Sec 59 for him from that use of a vehicle.(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,
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th February 22:34
Doesnt purpose come into this?
If you have one numptie going along to such an event to do donuts the S59 fits
If his mate goes along because of the prospective donuts he may be in line for AACP
If other people are going along for looking over the cars and not interested in some numptie who they didnt know was going to be doing donuts arent they out of the frame for an s59?
For donuts read any sec3 offence
If you have one numptie going along to such an event to do donuts the S59 fits
If his mate goes along because of the prospective donuts he may be in line for AACP
If other people are going along for looking over the cars and not interested in some numptie who they didnt know was going to be doing donuts arent they out of the frame for an s59?
For donuts read any sec3 offence
saaby93 said:
Doesnt purpose come into this?
If you have one numptie going along to such an event to do donuts the S59 fits
If his mate goes along because of the prospective donuts he may be in line for AACP
If other people are going along for looking over the cars and not interested in some numptie who they didnt know was going to be doing donuts arent they out of the frame for an s59?
For donuts read any sec3 offence
The officer needs reasonable grounds for believing that there is a Sec 3 by the AACPer.If you have one numptie going along to such an event to do donuts the S59 fits
If his mate goes along because of the prospective donuts he may be in line for AACP
If other people are going along for looking over the cars and not interested in some numptie who they didnt know was going to be doing donuts arent they out of the frame for an s59?
For donuts read any sec3 offence
Zeeky said:
It's not "exactly the same behaviour". The behaviour for ACCPing is the encouraging the other to commit the offence and the other actually doing so. The person committing the offence has behaved entirely differently. He has actually committed the offence.
They are separate offences based on different facts.
Not sure about the rest of the UK but in Scotland if you aide or abet an offence then you are guilty of that offence (and not of a seperate aiding or abetting offence). For example if you aide or abet the commission of a theft, you are charged with theft, not aiding or abetting theft. In fact the charge is identical to that of the person who commits the offence. They are separate offences based on different facts.
Is AACP a seperate offence in E&W or is the person charged with the primary offence?
Cat
Cat said:
Zeeky said:
It's not "exactly the same behaviour". The behaviour for ACCPing is the encouraging the other to commit the offence and the other actually doing so. The person committing the offence has behaved entirely differently. He has actually committed the offence.
They are separate offences based on different facts.
Not sure about the rest of the UK but in Scotland if you aide or abet an offence then you are guilty of that offence (and not of a seperate aiding or abetting offence). For example if you aide or abet the commission of a theft, you are charged with theft, not aiding or abetting theft. In fact the charge is identical to that of the person who commits the offence. They are separate offences based on different facts.
Is AACP a seperate offence in E&W or is the person charged with the primary offence?
Cat
vonhosen said:
A motor vehicle is still being used in a manner that contravenes Sec 3 & the AACPers Sec 3 is an offence by virtue of that very use of a motor vehicle. That very use of a motor vehicle is, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance.
It's one use of the motor vehicle & one instance of is, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance, but two separate cases of Sec 3 emanate from it & both have satisfied everything that is needed for Sec 59 to apply for both.
In relation to the AACPer's offence 'Was a vehicle being used in a manner that contravened Sec 3 ?
It had to be for him to commit the offence in the first place - so CHECK
No, he had to encourage the driver to do it for him to commit the offence. The offence is encouraging him to do it, not him doing it.It's one use of the motor vehicle & one instance of is, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance, but two separate cases of Sec 3 emanate from it & both have satisfied everything that is needed for Sec 59 to apply for both.
In relation to the AACPer's offence 'Was a vehicle being used in a manner that contravened Sec 3 ?
It had to be for him to commit the offence in the first place - so CHECK
vonhosen said:
'Is it or is it likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance ?'
If it was for the driver it stands true for him too - so CHECK.
No. That is misconceived. Encouraging someone to commit the offence makes him guilty of the offence.If it was for the driver it stands true for him too - so CHECK.
vonhosen said:
It matters not that it's not his car or him driving, there is no requirement in the legislation for that.
There is a requirement that he can only AACP an offence. There is no offence in this conduct.vonhosen said:
Sec 59 said:
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,
There is nothing in there that precludes the AACPers Sec 3 from attracting a Sec 59 for him from that use of a vehicle.(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,
But let's make it simple for you.
The power to seize is in para 3 :-
Those powers are-
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
That can only be the vehicle used in the offence.
The person AACPing the offence can only, by your logic, have his car siezed if he used it in the commission of the offence. The car being used in the offence is the one being driven.
Your tenacity for arguing a misconception is as considerable as your reputation for doing so
If the person encourages someone to commit a S3 offence, contrary to S59 and the driver has been warned pursuant to S59 before, then the driver can have his car seized. You seem to be claiming that if the person encouraging him to do so (who isn't subject to a similar warning and who isn't even driving at the time because his car is offroad) can have his car seized also. If he has more than one car which one has he used for the purposes of S59?
According to you S59 applies solely to the commission of the S3 offence by the actual driver and the person encouraging the driver must accept all the S59 consequences that apply to that driver to him also. He is actually worse off than the driver.
You must be able to see the absurdity in your assertion.
Edited by Zeeky on Sunday 19th February 23:28
vonhosen said:
They are charged with the primary offence, so for a Sec 3 by the driver they are themselves charged with a Sec 3.
So in E&W (as in Scotland) the law makes no distinction between a person who AACPs a s3 offence and a person who commits a s3 offence (as both are charged with same thing) and both would be convicted of the same offence (if found guilty). Therefore, I would suggest, your reasoning that a s59 could apply is correct. Cat
NB As with Von, I'm not suggesting that this is the case in the OP just that it is a possibility.
StottyZr said:
I've only just seen the thread is still going. I'll read through it properly tomorrow and decide if I'm putting pen to paper.
As far as I can tell.. Where they've described your offence at the bottom....In order to satisfy the first part of the s59 they need to pick one of these
3. If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
(Examples are – wheel spinning, skidding, revving engine excessivly, handbrake turns etc)
Where they've written 'antisocial behaviour' it doesnt describe what was antisocial. Being parked up or walking around doesnt satisfy the offence.
If they mean 'is likely to cause annoyance' that's covered in the second part of the s59. They still need to say what contravenes the first part.
It's only when both parts are satisfied that you deserve an s59
If I have that right
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 19th February 23:31
Cat said:
vonhosen said:
They are charged with the primary offence, so for a Sec 3 by the driver they are themselves charged with a Sec 3.
So in E&W (as in Scotland) the law makes no distinction between a person who AACPs a s3 offence and a person who commits a s3 offence (as both are charged with same thing) and both would be convicted of the same offence (if found guilty). Therefore, I would suggest, your reasoning that a s59 could apply is correct. Cat
NB As with Von, I'm not suggesting that this is the case in the OP just that it is a possibility.
Not that it makes any difference to the absurdity in the assertion that S59 applies to aiders and abettors of the offence.
Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
A motor vehicle is still being used in a manner that contravenes Sec 3 & the AACPers Sec 3 is an offence by virtue of that very use of a motor vehicle. That very use of a motor vehicle is, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance.
It's one use of the motor vehicle & one instance of is, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance, but two separate cases of Sec 3 emanate from it & both have satisfied everything that is needed for Sec 59 to apply for both.
In relation to the AACPer's offence 'Was a vehicle being used in a manner that contravened Sec 3 ?'
It had to be for him to commit the offence in the first place - so CHECK
No, he had to encourage the driver to do it for him to commit the offence. The offence is encouraging him to do it, not him doing it.It's one use of the motor vehicle & one instance of is, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance, but two separate cases of Sec 3 emanate from it & both have satisfied everything that is needed for Sec 59 to apply for both.
In relation to the AACPer's offence 'Was a vehicle being used in a manner that contravened Sec 3 ?'
It had to be for him to commit the offence in the first place - so CHECK
Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
'Is it or is it likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance ?'
If it was for the driver it stands true for him too - so CHECK.
No. That is misconceived. Encouraging someone to commit the offence makes him guilty of the offence.If it was for the driver it stands true for him too - so CHECK.
Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
It matters not that it's not his car or him driving, there is no requirement in the legislation for that.
There is a requirement that he can only AACP an offence. There is no offence in this conduct.Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
Sec 59 said:
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,
There is nothing in there that precludes the AACPers Sec 3 from attracting a Sec 59 for him from that use of a vehicle.(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,
Zeeky said:
But let's make it simple for you.
The power to seize is in para 3 :-
[i] Those powers are—
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;[/i]
That can only be the vehicle used in the offence.
The person AACPing the offence can only, by your logic, have his car siezed if he used it in the commission of the offence. The car being used in the offence is the one being driven.
Let's make this easy for you. I haven't said that the Sec 59 is in relation to the AACPers vehicle, it's not it's in relation to the vehicle being driven in a Sec 3 contravention. One vehicle Sec 59'd, two people Sec 59'd. Section 59's relate to vehicles & persons, not just the persons' vehicle. You can have more than one person Sec 59'd from the use of one vehicle.The power to seize is in para 3 :-
[i] Those powers are—
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;[/i]
That can only be the vehicle used in the offence.
The person AACPing the offence can only, by your logic, have his car siezed if he used it in the commission of the offence. The car being used in the offence is the one being driven.
Zeeky said:
Your tenacity for arguing a misconception is as considerable as your reputation for doing so
The misconception appears to be yours.Zeeky said:
If the person encourages someone to commit a S3 offence, contrary to S59 and the driver has been warned pursuant to S59 before the driver can have his car seized. You seem to be claiming that if the person encouraging him to do so (who isn't subject to a similar warning and who isn't even driving at the time because his car is offroad) can have his car seized also. If he has more than one car which one has he used for the purposes of S59?
According to you S59 applies solely to the commission of the S3 offence by the actual driver and the person encouraging the driver must accept all the S59 consequences that apply to that driver to him also. He is actually worse off than the driver.
You must be able to see the absurdity in your assertion.
There goes your misconception again. The AACPer gets a Sec 59 in relation to the driven vehicle. It's if he later gets another in relation to that or another vehicle that the vehicle used on the second occasion can then be seized under the legislation.According to you S59 applies solely to the commission of the S3 offence by the actual driver and the person encouraging the driver must accept all the S59 consequences that apply to that driver to him also. He is actually worse off than the driver.
You must be able to see the absurdity in your assertion.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th February 23:41
Zeeky said:
Aren't you charged with S44 of the Mags' Act by aiding and abetting another person in the commission of the summary offence of driving a vehicle in contravention of S3 or such like?
Don't know about E&W, that's why I asked the question. If, as Von stated, you are charged with the primary offence (as is the case in Scotland) then you are not charged with an offence under the Mags act. If the person is charged with the primary offence then your argument that a s59 cannot apply because that haven't committed a s3 offence is flawed. Cat
Edited by Cat on Sunday 19th February 23:45
I can only refer you to my earlier comments on the difference between ACCP and actually committing the offence. You misunderstand what S44 actually means and I can't change your misunderstanding It appears obvious to me that the elements of the offence are different but if you can't grasp that then there is not a lot that can be said.
So S59 applies to someone AACPing a S3 offence for the purpose of issuing a warning but not for seizing their vehicle. In the latter case S59 is not relevant to the driver's commission of the S3 offence . That is illogical.
Appears to you because of your misconception.
So if the person who is driving has not been warned but the person encouraging him has been warned then the driver has his vehicle seized without a warning due to the other person having had a warning.
Equally absurd.
Back to the legislation
(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.
A warning can only be given to the person using the vehicle in contravention of S3 plus the other requirements.
On that basis it isn't sufficient to be guilty of S3 by ACCP but only by actually driving. There is no use of the car by the person ACCPing the offence. He can neither be given a warning or have his vehicle seized.
vonhosen said:
Zeeky said:
But let's make it simple for you.
The power to seize is in para 3 :-
Those powers are-
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
That can only be the vehicle used in the offence.
The person AACPing the offence can only, by your logic, have his car siezed if he used it in the commission of the offence. The car being used in the offence is the one being driven.
Let's make this easy for you. I haven't said that the Sec 59 is in relation to the AACPers vehicle, it's not it's in relation to the vehicle being driven in a Sec 3 contravention. One vehicle Sec 59'd, two people Sec 59'd. Section 59's relate to vehicles & persons, not just the persons' vehicle.The power to seize is in para 3 :-
Those powers are-
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
That can only be the vehicle used in the offence.
The person AACPing the offence can only, by your logic, have his car siezed if he used it in the commission of the offence. The car being used in the offence is the one being driven.
vonhosen said:
Zeeky said:
Your tenacity for arguing a misconception is as considerable as your reputation for doing so
The misconception appears to be yours.vonhosen said:
Zeeky said:
If the person encourages someone to commit a S3 offence, contrary to S59 and the driver has been warned pursuant to S59 before the driver can have his car seized. You seem to be claiming that if the person encouraging him to do so (who isn't subject to a similar warning and who isn't even driving at the time because his car is offroad) can have his car seized also. If he has more than one car which one has he used for the purposes of S59?
According to you S59 applies solely to the commission of the S3 offence by the actual driver and the person encouraging the driver must accept all the S59 consequences that apply to that driver to him also. He is actually worse off than the driver.
You must be able to see the absurdity in your assertion.
There goes your misconception again. The AACPer gets a Sec 59 in relation to the driven vehicle. It's if he later gets another in relation to that or another vehicle that the vehicle used on the second occasion can then be seized under the legislation.According to you S59 applies solely to the commission of the S3 offence by the actual driver and the person encouraging the driver must accept all the S59 consequences that apply to that driver to him also. He is actually worse off than the driver.
You must be able to see the absurdity in your assertion.
Equally absurd.
Back to the legislation
(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.
A warning can only be given to the person using the vehicle in contravention of S3 plus the other requirements.
On that basis it isn't sufficient to be guilty of S3 by ACCP but only by actually driving. There is no use of the car by the person ACCPing the offence. He can neither be given a warning or have his vehicle seized.
Maybe I missed this earlier in the thread, if so apologies* , but I am somewhat unclear why a document which is clearly titled a warning notice under S59 Police Reform Act has tick boxes for offences which are nothing to do with S3 or S34 offences. E.g no MOT, no insurance and so on.
Other perfectly suitable legislation for these.
Other perfectly suitable legislation for these.
- *The possible reason for missing any discussion is that by and large keep away from S59 threads as they are just too irritating.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff