Police acting above the law
Discussion
This blog entry from a working policeman includes minutes from a magistrates road traffic committee meeting at which a South Yorkshire Police Inspector attended with information on their new policy on no insurance drivers. The following passage is taken from the minutes:
2158 OPERATION TAKEAWAY AND ANPR MACHINES Trevor Tindle, Road Policing Group Inspector South Yorkshire Police (SYP), gave a presentation on how SYP were dealing with uninsured vehicles through Operation Takeaway. When an officer stopped a vehicle and established that no insurance existed for that vehicle, the owner was asked to sign a form disclaiming the vehicle, which then transferred ownership to a recovery agent. The owner could reclaim the vehicle if s/he provided valid insurance for that vehicle, paid a recovery fee of £105 and paid £12 per day storage costs. If the vehicle was not reclaimed within 21 days the agent was free to dispose of the vehicle to recover its costs. The offender was also prosecuted for the offence of no insurance. THE POLICE HAD NO LEGAL POWERS TO REMOVE VEHICLES IN THIS WAY AND SYP EXPECTED TO BE CHALLENGED AT SOME POINT BUT WOULD CONTINUE THE OPERATION UNTIL THEN . Since the operation began county-wide in Yorkshire from January 2004, 64% of drivers had signed a disclaimer and forfeited their vehicles. If a driver refused to disclaim the vehicle, SYP still aimed to have it recovered.The committee expressed surprise that the operation had not been challenged in court. Trevor said that the main reason for this was that a challenge would not be funded by legal aid . Trevor also gave an update on the use of ANPR machines. A machine was in operation in a shopping centre in Sheffield where 187 stolen vehicles had been identified. Unfortunately the police did not have sufficient manpower to follow-up these findings with prosecutions. The technology would be strengthened in 2005 with the introduction of ANPR bar codes that would be hidden in different parts of a vehicle - such as engine, registration plate, inside car itself, so that when the police carried out a vehicle check, it would be able to ascertain whether or not all the parts belonged together.
(Capitalisation of the key sentence was added by the blogger)
Whilst I am in favour of measures which hit drivers without insurance, it's worrying that this force seem to be willing to act above the law just because nobody will have the nous, or financial ability to challenge them!
[url]Full minutes|http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_coppersblog_archive.html#111730885547224153[/url]
2158 OPERATION TAKEAWAY AND ANPR MACHINES Trevor Tindle, Road Policing Group Inspector South Yorkshire Police (SYP), gave a presentation on how SYP were dealing with uninsured vehicles through Operation Takeaway. When an officer stopped a vehicle and established that no insurance existed for that vehicle, the owner was asked to sign a form disclaiming the vehicle, which then transferred ownership to a recovery agent. The owner could reclaim the vehicle if s/he provided valid insurance for that vehicle, paid a recovery fee of £105 and paid £12 per day storage costs. If the vehicle was not reclaimed within 21 days the agent was free to dispose of the vehicle to recover its costs. The offender was also prosecuted for the offence of no insurance. THE POLICE HAD NO LEGAL POWERS TO REMOVE VEHICLES IN THIS WAY AND SYP EXPECTED TO BE CHALLENGED AT SOME POINT BUT WOULD CONTINUE THE OPERATION UNTIL THEN . Since the operation began county-wide in Yorkshire from January 2004, 64% of drivers had signed a disclaimer and forfeited their vehicles. If a driver refused to disclaim the vehicle, SYP still aimed to have it recovered.The committee expressed surprise that the operation had not been challenged in court. Trevor said that the main reason for this was that a challenge would not be funded by legal aid . Trevor also gave an update on the use of ANPR machines. A machine was in operation in a shopping centre in Sheffield where 187 stolen vehicles had been identified. Unfortunately the police did not have sufficient manpower to follow-up these findings with prosecutions. The technology would be strengthened in 2005 with the introduction of ANPR bar codes that would be hidden in different parts of a vehicle - such as engine, registration plate, inside car itself, so that when the police carried out a vehicle check, it would be able to ascertain whether or not all the parts belonged together.
(Capitalisation of the key sentence was added by the blogger)
Whilst I am in favour of measures which hit drivers without insurance, it's worrying that this force seem to be willing to act above the law just because nobody will have the nous, or financial ability to challenge them!
[url]Full minutes|http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_coppersblog_archive.html#111730885547224153[/url]
If you look at the Minutes these are from a meeting in 2004.
Since then Parliament has passed The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which at Section 150 gives power for police to seize uninsured vehicles and those driven by persons who do not have a Driving Licence.
Initially, before the Act became law, as a trial to see how it worked a Pilot scheme was operated by a number of selected forces of which it would appear South Yorks was not privy.
Probably because Streetcop (his Force) would have filled the Station with impounded vehicles.
Soi lets kick the urban myth that in these circumstances BiB is beyond the law.
DVD
Since then Parliament has passed The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which at Section 150 gives power for police to seize uninsured vehicles and those driven by persons who do not have a Driving Licence.
Initially, before the Act became law, as a trial to see how it worked a Pilot scheme was operated by a number of selected forces of which it would appear South Yorks was not privy.
Probably because Streetcop (his Force) would have filled the Station with impounded vehicles.
Soi lets kick the urban myth that in these circumstances BiB is beyond the law.
DVD
aspender said:
A machine was in operation in a shopping centre in Sheffield where 187 stolen vehicles had been identified.
Just for information - the APNR machines are on the exits of Meadowhall car park - I noticed them only yesterday as I was leaving - but I thought they were for checking numbers of cars in the car park for the "Car park full" signs - but I also thought they looked a bit sophisticated machines for that.
It may be unlawful to confiscate uninsured cars, but personally, I think the more they crush, the better. Considering 5% of all cars are driving around uninsured, and are probably involved in a far higher % of crashes, car park dings, and even hit-and-runs, I reckon the more they get off the road the better.
Who amongst you wants to have to deal with being pranged by an uninsured scumbag?
DVD - are you saying streetcop is SY force? If so, I hope it's him who stops me next time (if there is a next time). Hopefully I'll get better treatment with "Pistonheads.com - speed matters" splashed all over the back of my car!
>> Edited by nubbin on Monday 30th May 09:49
Dwight VanDriver said:This is the same 'Act' as some BiB once used to get MoP with radar detectors to sign a Deed of Gift, without being told exactly what it was, and hand their expensive toy over to avoid prosecution...then the application of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 - DVD will corect me if this is wrong - to radar detectors was found to be, er, not applicable and they were legal after all. Obtaining goods by deception? Ways and Means Act? Thin blue line you're treading on, BiB...
Ways and Means Act applied Telecat.
Now we have the Totalitarian Control Freakery Act being re-introduced by our anally retentive muppets and they'll be banned soon anyway.
What the Inspector was saying that there was nothing laid down in exact statute to seize. Conversley there was nothing that said he couldn't and thereby consider invoking other law as stated. High Court decision as to wether right or wrong.
High Court judgement: Rice v Connolly [1966]
Held no exhaustive list of police powers and they are entitled to take action that is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing and detecting crime.
Evidence?, protection of property?, removal of vehicle from road on safety grounds? etc etc.
DVD
( A tenner to anyone that runs over that bl***y Crazy Frog....)
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Monday 30th May 13:57
High Court judgement: Rice v Connolly [1966]
Held no exhaustive list of police powers and they are entitled to take action that is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing and detecting crime.
Evidence?, protection of property?, removal of vehicle from road on safety grounds? etc etc.
DVD
( A tenner to anyone that runs over that bl***y Crazy Frog....)
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Monday 30th May 13:57
Dwight VanDriver said:
High Court judgement: Rice v Connolly [1966]
Held no exhaustive list of police powers and they are entitled to take action that is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing and detecting crime.
Fair play DVD, but as you say it would be for a Court to decide what was 'reasonable', not an Inspector, though he/she is entitled to try their hand...sometimes BiB judgement seems at odds with common sense and fair play...but an uninsured scrote with outstanding, in an untested and untaxed deathtrap, that's a fair cop. Were they all like that?
Now I'll let you into a littel secret TB and don't tell anyone. All you others ignore this post and go elsewhere OK.
In the 60's, last century mind, when I came across a no Insurance and bear in mind that everybody could not afford a car, then I reported. I pointed out to continue would be an offence and the perils therein. We had no provision for storing cars at base so my final words were that I was going off in the opposite direction to which the driver had been travelling.
They were left to their own devices and hardly any vehicles were left at the roadside. Strange no comment was ever made by the Magistrates as to what happened to the motor.
Now adays to do that would be possibly courting disaster and a trip to the see the Chief on a disicipline.
DVD
In the 60's, last century mind, when I came across a no Insurance and bear in mind that everybody could not afford a car, then I reported. I pointed out to continue would be an offence and the perils therein. We had no provision for storing cars at base so my final words were that I was going off in the opposite direction to which the driver had been travelling.
They were left to their own devices and hardly any vehicles were left at the roadside. Strange no comment was ever made by the Magistrates as to what happened to the motor.
Now adays to do that would be possibly courting disaster and a trip to the see the Chief on a disicipline.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:Yes I can see the perils in today's world, a world where an ounce of common sense would probably lead to several pounds of the brown stuff hitting the fan. And we all know which way the wind would take it...
In the 60's, last century mind, when I came across a no Insurance and bear in mind that everybody could not afford a car, then I reported. I pointed out to continue would be an offence and the perils therein. We had no provision for storing cars at base so my final words were that I was going off in the opposite direction to which the driver had been travelling. They were left to their own devices and hardly any vehicles were left at the roadside. Strange no comment was ever made by the Magistrates as to what happened to the motor. Now adays to do that would be possibly courting disaster and a trip to the see the Chief on a disicipline.DVD
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff