Section 59 police reform act?????????

[10mpg]

Three weeks ago i got stopped by a certian local policeman who told me i had been pulled over for revving my car at a junction (it was cold I'd just started the car and was only blipping the throttle to stop it stalling) he also gave me a ticket to get my rear light fixed even though i fixed it on the spot (loose wire).

Yesterday i was drivng along the A4 late at night and the same policeman pulls me over for 'wheelspinning' away from some lights, obviously this plod has never seen a proper wheelspin done in anger as this was just a case of one wheel spinning a couple of times on the crap surface of the junction, it certaianly wasnt anything major noisy or 'dangerous'.

So he gets on his high horse and lectures me that he had stopped me for 'dangerous driving' twice now'!!!!!! and told me that pulling off like that was bad for my clutch and fuel consumption.

He then procedes to give me a 'section 59' whiuch apperently means that if i get stopped again in 12 months (or get this "someonelse gets stopped in my car" ) my car will be impounded and will cost me a forune to get back or it will be crushed!

Bear in mind i got no producer either of the times because he could check via his computer that my car had just passed an MOT was fully comp insured and taxed till next year and despite checking all the tyres and numberplated etc etc he could find nothing to get me on.

I appreciate that my car is loud and ditinctive (tuned rover 3.5 vitesse) but i am not some 17 year old kid in a corsa with no valid insurance and an exhaust held together with gaffa tape.

Does anyone out there know anything about this slightly draconian law as i am worried that this sod will pull me again for next to nothing and that will leave me carless and im buggered if I'm going to drive a different car into work just so i dont get noticed.

>> Edited by 10mpg on Saturday 18th March 14:21

[SS2.]

10mpg said:

Does anyone out there know anything about this slightly draconian law as i am worried that this sod will pull me again for next to nothing and that will leave me carless and im buggered if I'm going to drive a different car into work just so i dont get noticed.

Afraid there is something in it...To get your vehicle released, a recovery charge and daily storage charge is required to be paid.

What I know of it, its a particularly nasty / worrying piece of legislation. Whilst the intentions of S59 are commendable (to get donut-ing chavs off the streets), it is wide open for abuse on the part of unscrupulous police officer(s) who, with the powers afforded by S59, have become judge, jury and executioner..

So, they say you were driving in a manner likely to cause distress or annoyance. You say not. You get Section 59'd anyway with little or nothing by way of recourse to appeal..

Innocent until proven guilty ? Nope, just plain guilty..

Section 59 PRA2002 said:

(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). (2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1). (3) Those powers are- (a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle (b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle (c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be (d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c). (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. (5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if- (a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning (b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person (c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him or (d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months. (6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house. (8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force. (9) In this section- "driving" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) "motor vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads and "private dwelling house" does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

>> Edited by SS2. on Saturday 18th March 15:45

[justinp1]

Interesting piece of legislation.

The officer *can* get access to your car if it is in a garage, but there is a clause which says he is not allowed to look for it in your house...

On a more important note, lets say for example you had a car with a naturally loud exhaust, say a Ferrari with a Tubi or something. This could be an obvious target for a local bobby if they really held a grudge. All they would have to decide would be that it is an 'annoyance' or could cause 'distress' to old people and he could literally stop you every time he saw you and on the n'th time impound your car before any right to appeal!

[10mpg]

So basically unless I fit the exhaust from a 2litre and paint it beige I'm buggered?

I must say i feel slightly uneasy being 'judged' with this much authority by the local uniformed bill.

On another note nowhere else in the country that I have lived have I had so little faith in the police as in the 'Thames Valley region' I really should move 20 miles south and enjoy hampshire PD...

I feel I may heave to run this new bit of info under the nose of a barrister I know, see what other laws they have stomped on in passing this one...

[justinp1]

10mpg said:

So basically unless I fit the exhaust from a 2litre and paint it beige I'm buggered? I must say i feel slightly uneasy being 'judged' with this much authority by the local uniformed bill. On another note nowhere else in the country that I have lived have I had so little faith in the police as in the 'Thames Valley region' I really should move 20 miles south and enjoy hampshire PD... I feel I may heave to run this new bit of info under the nose of a barrister I know, see what other laws they have stomped on in passing this one...

I am sure that there is an age old concept in this country that *before* you are punished you have the right to state your case in court!

I know what the Section 59 is there for, but the problem is that it only takes a few 'Judge Dredd' types to decide they dislike someone for some real injustices to take place.

[tvrgit]

Like you, I had thought that this was meant for bean-can-exhausted Corsas donutting round Maccy D's.

My car is not exactly quiet either, and also needs to be blipped when cold at junctions etc, so there but for the grace.

Anybody able to advise on rights of ap[eal - it seems to me, like you say, that it cannot be right to be penalised without a right of recourse to court.

[eliminator]

This a problem with much of the legislation passed by this Government (not just moter vehicle related); inadequate definition of the "offence" within the legislation itself and a "promise" to apply it wisely. The public are then left "unpersecuted by concession", not judged by laws that they can reasonably be asked to comply with.

I believe that this legislation will not stand up to a challenge under the Human Rights banner, in a case such as cited. ECHR has held that deprevation of personal property either without the ability to challenge / defend, or when the deprivation is disproportionate to the "offence", is in breach of the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's own property. Taking away a car (posibly worth £100k or more) because you bliped the throttle one day and spun a wheel on some gravel the next does not seem to me to be proportionate. And I don't see any provision to challenge the view of BiB concerned. Still, I don't actually want to be the person persecuted, deprived of my car and left with the legal bill (and hassle) to prove this point.

Others more knowledgeable than me out there:- any point in lodging a complaint with his supervisor / PCA? might get the individual told to leave you alone.

[john57]

I have not seen anyone in London have their car or bike seized under S.59 unless they were - and had previously - been driving like a complete a**e. The last one I knew of was where a lad wheelied a scooter past a marked traffic car .... his scooter was seized as he'd done similar many times before and the officers collected a complaint from Dad who thought they were being unreasonable.

If the officer is being OTT in your case then complain - write in but send it by recorded delivery so you have proof it got there. You are the only person who knows exactly how you were driving or what was said, etc, etc .......

S.59 is a powerful tool - so long as it is not used by a tool ..... there are officers like that about, but far, far more who respect what they can and should do with the power otherwise they know it will get removed or amended.

As I say, has anyone here had their car or bike taken away unfairly ..... or is it a case again of 'a friend of mine said / heard', etc ..... The 'horror' stories of getting S.59 warnings for doing 40 in a 30 appear here but where I work in London I have never seen it used in such a way - nor would I wish to.

[vonhosen]

Seems to me that the best way is to apply the logic that if you are taking action under s59 you would/should also be taking action under s3 or s34 RTA 1988 at the same time. If you couldn't be bothered to report for those offences you obviously didn't think it was serious enough to warrant taking the vehicle either. (IMHO)

{That's how I'd apply the legislation anyway}

[Flat in Fifth]

vonhosen said:

Seems to me that the best way is to apply the logic that if you are taking action under s59 you would/should also be taking action under s3 or s34 RTA 1988 at the same time. If you couldn't be bothered to report for those offences you obviously didn't think it was serious enough to warrant taking the vehicle either. (IMHO) {That's how I'd apply the legislation anyway}

agreed seems sensible.

For info of those who don't know S3 & S34 RTA

S3 If a person drives a mech prop veh on a road or other public place without due car and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road o place, he is guilty of an offence.

Otherwise known as Careless and Inconsiderate Driving

S34 Driving a vehicle without lawful authority other than a road.

basically vehicles used for causing harassment and "driving like an a" technical term that!

[autismuk]

eliminator said:

This a problem with much of the legislation passed by this Government (not just moter vehicle related); inadequate definition of the "offence" within the legislation itself and a "promise" to apply it wisely. The public are then left "unpersecuted by concession", not judged by laws that they can reasonably be asked to comply with.

..... and this clearly is not happening, generally. "Anti-terrorist" laws and "Offence" laws being the worst examples - for example the poor s*d being prosecuted for referring to someone (not in her hearing) as the "diversity dyke".

It would appear that virtually *anything* can cause an offence. Thus it is up to the Police/CPS whether they prosecute you or not, rather than whether you have actually done anything wrong.

It also wastes an enormous amount of BiB time.

I think the root cause is the desire of the Government to get the clear up rate up. Because the Government do not actually care how this is achieved as long as the numbers look good to get votes, there is pressure brought on the BiB to bear to nick lots of people for stupid things (Section 5 ?) rather than attempt to stop difficult to solve crimes. I've seen more than one complaint that they are scored on the 'number of detections', so a cop catching two people swearing is a better cop than one who solves one murder. In Labour-land, anyway. Then the Prisoner's Dilemma kicks in.

[SS2.]

How onerous is the case building process for the prosecution of an offender under s.3 or s.34 RTA ? Unless evidence had been gathered to the required criminal standard, its doubtful the case would ever see court.

Would 'reasonable suspicion' be sufficient to successfully prosecute under these sections ? Probably not..

s.59 does not require the BiB issuing the warning or seizing the motor vehicle to actually witness the alleged contravention. The BiB need only 'reasonable suspicion / reasonable grounds' that the vehicle was being used in such a manner. Based on those 'reasonable suspicions', a motor vehicle can be seized and held pending payment of the 105 quid recovery fee..

What, then, is the definition of 'reasonable suspicion' ? A tip off, a hunch, a grudge ??

I agree with vonhosen that a benchmark by which to justify the issuing of a s.59 could be consideration as to whether the circumstances and the evidence at that point would be sufficient to successfully prosecute under s.3 / s.34.

IMO, a major problem with s.59 is that this benchmark can be ignored with impunity by the BiB.



>> Edited by SS2. on Saturday 18th March 19:31

[autismuk]

john57 said:

I have not seen anyone in London have their car or bike seized under S.59 unless they were - and had previously - been driving like a complete a**e. The last one I knew of was where a lad wheelied a scooter past a marked traffic car .... his scooter was seized as he'd done similar many times before and the officers collected a complaint from Dad who thought they were being unreasonable. If the officer is being OTT in your case then complain - write in but send it by recorded delivery so you have proof it got there. You are the only person who knows exactly how you were driving or what was said, etc, etc .......

I appreciate most BiB will use it entirely sensibly. However, there are always a few unfit to wear the uniform who pursue personal vendettas.

The problem with this is it gives a Policeman immense unaccountable power. This is *always* a bad idea, whatever the quality of the Officers is.

Time after time, Blair gives people powers without responsibility, and they almost *all* abuse them. This one is better than most because it is idiot individuals ; some of those abuses are systemic.

[autismuk]

It's like ASBOs.

Because of the lack of actual evidence required - hearsay or opinion will do which allows people with personal vendettas or nutters to create a case - it is abused as an alternative to "the proper powers of the Police" because it's quick and easy to get a result.

It effectively allows people to "make up new laws" with a potential jail sentence for things that aren't actually a crime.

The fact that taking action may be difficult is not a good reason to make up new laws that short circuit everything. Because they *will* be abused. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blind to reality.

Too much of this is just vote-buying. To get New Labour a few easy votes, people suffer in hospitals, innocents are prosecuted under 'fast track' legislation that encourages slapdash and lazy work, and Children get a cr*p education. None of this is the fault of the people actually doing the *work*.

I don't know about Policing personally (though the external symptoms are the same), but the reality in Health and Schools is so laughably far from the 'presentation' that it's comical. Or it would be if people weren't dying, anyway.

[Flat in Fifth]

Personally I think the S59 is typical of New Labour legislation. They take an issue, let us say Barry Boys doing burn outs do-nutting etc in B&Q car park, most people me included might say; stupid boys who deserve what they get.

So HMG enacts legislation, which for a number of reasons outlined by autismuk and others, e.g. poor drafting, poor application, poor or no enforcement ends up being a joke or used in the wrong circumstances on some people who were never particularly a problem in the first place.

Meanwhile the original problem children, in the main, just flick the Vs and carry on.

Personally I think S59 is, in reality, a vile piece of legislation. I mean what is the route of appeal if one wants to contest the handing out of such a notice. Is there one?

To boot a piece of legislation where there is specific warning to enforcers that "careful consideration should be given to Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular Protocol 1, Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights"

Nah sorry, any bib who hands out a S59 on its own and for anything other than truly driving like an utter out and out divot eg B&Q car park shenanigans, is potentially a disgrace to the job imho. That view will not be accepted by all I accept, just my 2p

[matchless]

anyone taking your property without you first having been found Guilty in a Court of Law is common theft, simple as, no ifs or buts

[autismuk]

IANAC.

Is there is a reason why said halfwit could not be prosecuted under current laws ? Driving without due Care for example ? Causing a public nuisance ?

Removing someone's vehicle confiscated because of - almost anything - seems grossly disproportionate and more to do with vote grabbing than any concept of justice. Even some kid's scooter who is doing wheelies.

A lot of these laws seem to be duplicate. For example, enciting racial hatred. Surely it it is currently a crime to encourage people to go out and attack people ; why does it need to have a new one with reference to their colour ? The cynic in me says the only interest is getting easier convictions on crimes which will get votes for "crackdowns".

Why this endless need to draft laws so absurdly wide that almost any behaviour is a transgression simply because of what some other person "feels" or someone's "opinion" ?

Suppose I find the Police Uniform offensive, are you BiB all going to be prosecuted ? Virtually *everyone* finds Safety Cameras and/or their propaganda offensive.

I also find it rather disturbing (if it is the case) that if I assault a white man, and assault a black man identically, I get a worse sentence for the latter simply because *he* thinks it is racist, or some other unspecified person does.

There are too many indefensible crimes coming on board. How can you defend against "what someone feels" or "if someone is offended" ? (There are too many cases these days where there is *no* effective line of defence apart from saying "It's not like that" or "It isn't true", but there is no path by which you can demonstrate it not to be true).

It will be interesting to see what happens the first time the roles are reversed (Black on white crime). One gets the impression the Police *Service* (not the BiB) had to be basically threatened (largely by David Davis) to arrest some of the Islamic demonstrators.

[mg6b]

10mpg said:

.... and im buggered if I'm going to drive a different car into work just so i dont get noticed.

I am afraid the Section 59 warning lasts for 1 year and is aimed at you and the car you were stopped in. If another person drives your car badly and it is checked on PNC by a PC, it will be seized. If you drive another car badly and you are checked on PNC, then the same will happen (or might happen).

Be careful from now on.

[mg6b]

matchless said:

anyone taking your property without you first having been found Guilty in a Court of Law is common theft, simple as, no ifs or buts

WRONG!

[mojocvh]

Very interesting thread indeed, says Mojo with an open single silencer on his Mojo!!