Issued with a section 59 - what exactly is it?
Discussion
Hi all. 
Got pulled over for the 1st time in my driving career tonight by the Northumbria Constabulary.
I joined a motorway at approx 70 - 75 mph and accelerated to perhaps 80 mph tops, but I cant be sure. As soon as I had got into the 1st lane I noticed a marked Volvo behind me straight away.
However, I hadn't noticed the sign saying 50mph - So fair cop on that front - my error. I thought it was a NSL. Which incidentaly it is about 1/2 a mile further down the road.
Two miles later I get tugged over and sat in the back of the patrol car. Go through my details etc and then he informed me his recording device wasnt operating so he wouldnt be issueing me any points on this occasion.
However, he did issue me with a "Section 59", telling me for 12 months my car can now be towed and impounded if I am caught speeding again / doing anything which raises an officers attention. I am not sure what details of the car he took, but I gave my name and adress.
I was extremely nervous throughout the whole thing as this is the first time I have had anything to do with the Police. I signed the doc, but with hindsight I realise I perhaps should have asked for a copy and / or asked why I had received the section. Or maybe the officers name / badge?
So basically, is this the norm?
Although he admitted he couldn't prove the speed I was doing, I would have thought I might just have received a stern word and a caution? Not a Section, which according to the internet seems to be more of an anti-social type legislation?
Got pulled over for the 1st time in my driving career tonight by the Northumbria Constabulary.
I joined a motorway at approx 70 - 75 mph and accelerated to perhaps 80 mph tops, but I cant be sure. As soon as I had got into the 1st lane I noticed a marked Volvo behind me straight away.
However, I hadn't noticed the sign saying 50mph - So fair cop on that front - my error. I thought it was a NSL. Which incidentaly it is about 1/2 a mile further down the road.
Two miles later I get tugged over and sat in the back of the patrol car. Go through my details etc and then he informed me his recording device wasnt operating so he wouldnt be issueing me any points on this occasion.
However, he did issue me with a "Section 59", telling me for 12 months my car can now be towed and impounded if I am caught speeding again / doing anything which raises an officers attention. I am not sure what details of the car he took, but I gave my name and adress.
I was extremely nervous throughout the whole thing as this is the first time I have had anything to do with the Police. I signed the doc, but with hindsight I realise I perhaps should have asked for a copy and / or asked why I had received the section. Or maybe the officers name / badge?
So basically, is this the norm?
Although he admitted he couldn't prove the speed I was doing, I would have thought I might just have received a stern word and a caution? Not a Section, which according to the internet seems to be more of an anti-social type legislation?
Lets wait for Von to pop along and provide justification...
S59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
(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).
S59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
(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).
If it was issued for speeding that it sounds like grounds for appeal as speeding isn't an offence covered by S59.
Oh wait minute - there is no right of appeal.
To the OP - drive like miss daisy for the next 12 months and ensure that any other driver of your car also drives like miss daisy. Another S59 in the next 12 months and you are walking home regardless of where you are at the time. £160 optional "storage" fee will see your vehicle returned, fail to pay will see it crushed instead.
Oh wait minute - there is no right of appeal.
To the OP - drive like miss daisy for the next 12 months and ensure that any other driver of your car also drives like miss daisy. Another S59 in the next 12 months and you are walking home regardless of where you are at the time. £160 optional "storage" fee will see your vehicle returned, fail to pay will see it crushed instead.
Just out of interest, what controls are there on the use of this legislation? I thought it was intended to address a specific problem with antisocial behaviour involving mini-motos, monkey bikes, etc. It appears to be used as a way of imposing a suspended punishment without due process where there isn't enough evidence to secure a conviction.
R99 said:
Hi all.
Got pulled over for the 1st time in my driving career tonight by the Northumbria Constabulary.
I joined a motorway at approx 70 - 75 mph and accelerated to perhaps 80 mph tops, but I cant be sure. As soon as I had got into the 1st lane I noticed a marked Volvo behind me straight away.
However, I hadn't noticed the sign saying 50mph - So fair cop on that front - my error. I thought it was a NSL. Which incidentaly it is about 1/2 a mile further down the road.
Two miles later I get tugged over and sat in the back of the patrol car. Go through my details etc and then he informed me his recording device wasnt operating so he wouldnt be issueing me any points on this occasion.
However, he did issue me with a "Section 59", telling me for 12 months my car can now be towed and impounded if I am caught speeding again / doing anything which raises an officers attention. I am not sure what details of the car he took, but I gave my name and adress.
I was extremely nervous throughout the whole thing as this is the first time I have had anything to do with the Police. I signed the doc, but with hindsight I realise I perhaps should have asked for a copy and / or asked why I had received the section. Or maybe the officers name / badge?
So basically, is this the norm?
Although he admitted he couldn't prove the speed I was doing, I would have thought I might just have received a stern word and a caution? Not a Section, which according to the internet seems to be more of an anti-social type legislation?
I would pop down to that station and ask to speak to a supervisor about this. It does not on the face of your version of events seem the correct use of s59. Got pulled over for the 1st time in my driving career tonight by the Northumbria Constabulary.
I joined a motorway at approx 70 - 75 mph and accelerated to perhaps 80 mph tops, but I cant be sure. As soon as I had got into the 1st lane I noticed a marked Volvo behind me straight away.
However, I hadn't noticed the sign saying 50mph - So fair cop on that front - my error. I thought it was a NSL. Which incidentaly it is about 1/2 a mile further down the road.
Two miles later I get tugged over and sat in the back of the patrol car. Go through my details etc and then he informed me his recording device wasnt operating so he wouldnt be issueing me any points on this occasion.
However, he did issue me with a "Section 59", telling me for 12 months my car can now be towed and impounded if I am caught speeding again / doing anything which raises an officers attention. I am not sure what details of the car he took, but I gave my name and adress.
I was extremely nervous throughout the whole thing as this is the first time I have had anything to do with the Police. I signed the doc, but with hindsight I realise I perhaps should have asked for a copy and / or asked why I had received the section. Or maybe the officers name / badge?
So basically, is this the norm?
Although he admitted he couldn't prove the speed I was doing, I would have thought I might just have received a stern word and a caution? Not a Section, which according to the internet seems to be more of an anti-social type legislation?
otolith said:
Just out of interest, what controls are there on the use of this legislation? I thought it was intended to address a specific problem with antisocial behaviour involving mini-motos, monkey bikes, etc. It appears to be used as a way of imposing a suspended punishment without due process where there isn't enough evidence to secure a conviction.
In short, none.otolith said:
Just out of interest, what controls are there on the use of this legislation? I thought it was intended to address a specific problem with antisocial behaviour involving mini-motos, monkey bikes, etc. It appears to be used as a way of imposing a suspended punishment without due process where there isn't enough evidence to secure a conviction.
The odious scope creep of the criminally unjust system...Well blow me down, based on the OP version taken at face value we have what has been alleged and predicted many times on this and other sites.
Namely:- Incorrect use of S59 to deal with an offence for which S59 was not intended and perfectly adequate alternative legislation exists yet the evidential proof of an offence is insufficient to support a summons/FPN against that legislation. Therefore the lazy S59 option invoked.
Who'd have thought it eh?
Chortles.
:avoids saying told you so:
Namely:- Incorrect use of S59 to deal with an offence for which S59 was not intended and perfectly adequate alternative legislation exists yet the evidential proof of an offence is insufficient to support a summons/FPN against that legislation. Therefore the lazy S59 option invoked.
Who'd have thought it eh?
Chortles.
:avoids saying told you so:
F i F said:
Well blow me down, based on the OP version taken at face value we have what has been alleged and predicted many times on this and other sites.
Namely:- Incorrect use of S59 to deal with an offence for which S59 was not intended and perfectly adequate alternative legislation exists yet the evidential proof of an offence is insufficient to support a summons/FPN against that legislation. Therefore the lazy S59 option invoked.
Who'd have thought it eh?
Chortles.
:avoids saying told you so:
Officers can mis-use any legislation if they don't understand it properly or if they choose to do so. No-one said it would not happen. S1 Pace I'm sure is mis-used as are other powers. Namely:- Incorrect use of S59 to deal with an offence for which S59 was not intended and perfectly adequate alternative legislation exists yet the evidential proof of an offence is insufficient to support a summons/FPN against that legislation. Therefore the lazy S59 option invoked.
Who'd have thought it eh?
Chortles.
:avoids saying told you so:
Does not make it a valuable and effective tool to deal with the problem it was designed for.
The OP if he is 100% correct about the incident should go to the station and ask to speak to a supervisor about the matter.
Far more abuses existed in the past than today.
Muse mode on.......
So 80 mph in a 50mph. No mention of inadequate signs etc.
Is this the action of a prudent careful driver?.
In the new definition of carelessness:
guilty if a driver drives in a way which falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. In deciding this the Court must have regard not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused. To be convicted of the separate offence of inconsiderate driving a conviction can only follow if third parties are actually inconvenienced.
So it can be argued that elements were there to support careless under S59 and therefore give rise to the action taken by Plod.
Novel way of dealing with the situation and probably more sting than a quick CO and £60 fine.
Coming to notice again in year a whoops away with the motor....
Muse mode off.
dvd
So 80 mph in a 50mph. No mention of inadequate signs etc.
Is this the action of a prudent careful driver?.
In the new definition of carelessness:
guilty if a driver drives in a way which falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. In deciding this the Court must have regard not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused. To be convicted of the separate offence of inconsiderate driving a conviction can only follow if third parties are actually inconvenienced.
So it can be argued that elements were there to support careless under S59 and therefore give rise to the action taken by Plod.
Novel way of dealing with the situation and probably more sting than a quick CO and £60 fine.
Coming to notice again in year a whoops away with the motor....
Muse mode off.
dvd
F i F said:
Well blow me down, based on the OP version taken at face value we have what has been alleged and predicted many times on this and other sites.
Namely:- Incorrect use of S59 to deal with an offence for which S59 was not intended and perfectly adequate alternative legislation exists yet the evidential proof of an offence is insufficient to support a summons/FPN against that legislation. Therefore the lazy S59 option invoked.
Who'd have thought it eh?
Chortles.
:avoids saying told you so:
The officer had a speedometer so surely he could have reported for summons?Namely:- Incorrect use of S59 to deal with an offence for which S59 was not intended and perfectly adequate alternative legislation exists yet the evidential proof of an offence is insufficient to support a summons/FPN against that legislation. Therefore the lazy S59 option invoked.
Who'd have thought it eh?
Chortles.
:avoids saying told you so:
I got a Section 59 last weekend when an unmarked car came racing up behind and tailgated me. Foolishly I sped up a little at which point he followed me to my destination then accused me of speeding although he 'couldn't prove it' (despite being three of them in his car, I thought there only needed to be two?).
I'm not going to deny it was my mistake for not noticing the signs. I must say though that they are the very small round '50' markers attached to over head lighting posts.
The thing is that I was driving alone, the road was empty and I guess that I was a little over zealous with the throttle when joining the m/way - this, coupled with my lack of knowledge that the area was a 50 zone, was the issue. As I said in my OP, hands up for that. I was not racing, or acting like a tit.
The problem is that the patrol car that pulled me over did not have his speed detection equipment in use, and thus the PC could not provide enough evidence to give me points for the alleged incident.
So, what I don't understand, is that with no evidence of the whole thing how do I now have a 12month section placed on me and my car?!
Does this mean that plod are going to be pulling me over every 5 mins, or does it not work like that?
Thanks for the replies folks, might have a word with the station, but as I say, foolishly, due to my nerves I never asked for a copy of the paperwork or the officers name / badge/ station.
Will I reciever any kind of postal info from this event?
The thing is that I was driving alone, the road was empty and I guess that I was a little over zealous with the throttle when joining the m/way - this, coupled with my lack of knowledge that the area was a 50 zone, was the issue. As I said in my OP, hands up for that. I was not racing, or acting like a tit.
The problem is that the patrol car that pulled me over did not have his speed detection equipment in use, and thus the PC could not provide enough evidence to give me points for the alleged incident.
So, what I don't understand, is that with no evidence of the whole thing how do I now have a 12month section placed on me and my car?!
Does this mean that plod are going to be pulling me over every 5 mins, or does it not work like that?
Thanks for the replies folks, might have a word with the station, but as I say, foolishly, due to my nerves I never asked for a copy of the paperwork or the officers name / badge/ station.
Will I reciever any kind of postal info from this event?
R99 said:
I'm not going to deny it was my mistake for not noticing the signs. I must say though that they are the very small round '50' markers attached to over head lighting posts.
The thing is that I was driving alone, the road was empty and I guess that I was a little over zealous with the throttle when joining the m/way - this, coupled with my lack of knowledge that the area was a 50 zone, was the issue. As I said in my OP, hands up for that. I was not racing, or acting like a tit.
The problem is that the patrol car that pulled me over did not have his speed detection equipment in use, and thus the PC could not provide enough evidence to give me points for the alleged incident.
So, what I don't understand, is that with no evidence of the whole thing how do I now have a 12month section placed on me and my car?!
Does this mean that plod are going to be pulling me over every 5 mins, or does it not work like that?
Thanks for the replies folks, might have a word with the station, but as I say, foolishly, due to my nerves I never asked for a copy of the paperwork or the officers name / badge/ station.
Will I reciever any kind of postal info from this event?
No. But as Mr Annie-VXR says, in the circumstances you describe, it sounds wrong. In those circumstances it seems impossible that the officer could go back and get the paperwork approved for the S59.The thing is that I was driving alone, the road was empty and I guess that I was a little over zealous with the throttle when joining the m/way - this, coupled with my lack of knowledge that the area was a 50 zone, was the issue. As I said in my OP, hands up for that. I was not racing, or acting like a tit.
The problem is that the patrol car that pulled me over did not have his speed detection equipment in use, and thus the PC could not provide enough evidence to give me points for the alleged incident.
So, what I don't understand, is that with no evidence of the whole thing how do I now have a 12month section placed on me and my car?!
Does this mean that plod are going to be pulling me over every 5 mins, or does it not work like that?
Thanks for the replies folks, might have a word with the station, but as I say, foolishly, due to my nerves I never asked for a copy of the paperwork or the officers name / badge/ station.
Will I reciever any kind of postal info from this event?
I agree with Mr Annie, that you perhaps ought to contact the police yourself, and enquire. (don't start with, 'there I was doing 70 in a 50'. Stick with, 'have I got a S59?' )
DVD - what about the other limb, whilst you're out there musing? Did he drive in a manner likely to cause harassment, distress or alarm?
If you questioned the officer, would have taken you car to pieces there and then to find something to stick you on for, as Traffic were rumoured to be doing at one point.
If you questioned the officer, would have taken you car to pieces there and then to find something to stick you on for, as Traffic were rumoured to be doing at one point.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Muse mode on.......
So 80 mph in a 50mph. No mention of inadequate signs etc.
Is this the action of a prudent careful driver?.
In the new definition of carelessness:
guilty if a driver drives in a way which falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. In deciding this the Court must have regard not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused. To be convicted of the separate offence of inconsiderate driving a conviction can only follow if third parties are actually inconvenienced.
So it can be argued that elements were there to support careless under S59 and therefore give rise to the action taken by Plod.
Novel way of dealing with the situation and probably more sting than a quick CO and £60 fine.
Coming to notice again in year a whoops away with the motor....
Muse mode off.
dvd
Judge Dredd. Pathetic.So 80 mph in a 50mph. No mention of inadequate signs etc.
Is this the action of a prudent careful driver?.
In the new definition of carelessness:
guilty if a driver drives in a way which falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. In deciding this the Court must have regard not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused. To be convicted of the separate offence of inconsiderate driving a conviction can only follow if third parties are actually inconvenienced.
So it can be argued that elements were there to support careless under S59 and therefore give rise to the action taken by Plod.
Novel way of dealing with the situation and probably more sting than a quick CO and £60 fine.
Coming to notice again in year a whoops away with the motor....
Muse mode off.
dvd
Abuse of power. If he's speeding let the courts deal with it. If it's a car ASBO, then it's a s59.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff