Powers to confiscate under Police Reform Act
Discussion
buckshee said:
I'm wondering under what circumstances this has been done. Was it before or after a motorist has been found guilty of an offence in court and what type of a offence warrants confiscation, especially when fines and endorsements are available as punishment?
You don't even have to be charged with an offence, though personally I think that would be best practice (but the seizure would be before any court hearing where a prosecution is taking place)
Here is the relevant bit
www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20030--f.htm#59
So, how does this all stand up with the Human Rights Act and one's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty under EC legislation? What right of appeal would someone have on reclaiming a vehicle confiscated if this procedure was followed? Since vehicles vary considerably in value, is there any recompense, especially of high value vehicles?
I ask these questions in order to understand the laws of this country, because this bit of legislation appears both Draconian and possibly in breach of EC legislation.
I ask these questions in order to understand the laws of this country, because this bit of legislation appears both Draconian and possibly in breach of EC legislation.
buckshee said:
So, how does this all stand up with the Human Rights Act and one's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty under EC legislation? What right of appeal would someone have on reclaiming a vehicle confiscated if this procedure was followed? Since vehicles vary considerably in value, is there any recompense, especially of high value vehicles?
I ask these questions in order to understand the laws of this country, because this bit of legislation appears both Draconian and possibly in breach of EC legislation.
I ask these questions in order to understand the laws of this country, because this bit of legislation appears both Draconian and possibly in breach of EC legislation.
In simple terms with application of the human rights act you have to ask yourself is it, Proportional, Legal, Accountable & Necessary ?
It isn't for one offence, it's used in recurrent offending so it will be argued that it is proportional & necessary because 1st action hasn't stopped the problem, so more draconian action is required. It's legal because it is under statute & all action is documented & accounted for. You of course have recourse through the courts open to you if you feel you have been wronged.
Like I said personally I wouldn't entertain using it where I didn't have sufficient evidence of an offence & was prosecuting for an offence under Sec 3 or 34 RTA 1988.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th June 21:11
vonhosen said:
Like I said personally I wouldn't entertain using it where I didn't have sufficient evidence of an offence & was prosecuting for an offence under Sec 3 or 34 RTA 1988.
I'm sure you wouldn't. However, there are endless examples of badly drafted legislation being used for other than its intended purpose."Bollocks to Blair" t-shirts. Shouts of "rubbish".
Edited by autismuk on Monday 12th June 09:59
vonhosen said:
Like I said personally I wouldn't entertain using it where I didn't have sufficient evidence of an offence & was prosecuting for an offence under Sec 3 or 34 RTA 1988.
vonhosen,
So you you wouldn't entertain confiscation if you didn't have enough evidence and when you prosecute under Sec 3 or 34 of the RTA 1988.
But, then we have:
^Slider^ said:
I know of cases and have done so myself. I dont know of any links to anything..
Slider,
In what circumstances have you confiscated vehicles? Why has Sec 3 or 34 of the RTA 1988 been inappropriate in these cases of confiscation?
I'm just interested in understanding how our justice system operates at the "sharp end".
Many thanks.
vonhosen said:
buckshee said:
So, how does this all stand up with the Human Rights Act and one's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty under EC legislation? What right of appeal would someone have on reclaiming a vehicle confiscated if this procedure was followed? Since vehicles vary considerably in value, is there any recompense, especially of high value vehicles?
I ask these questions in order to understand the laws of this country, because this bit of legislation appears both Draconian and possibly in breach of EC legislation.
I ask these questions in order to understand the laws of this country, because this bit of legislation appears both Draconian and possibly in breach of EC legislation.
In simple terms with application of the human rights act you have to ask yourself is it, Proportional, Legal, Accountable & Necessary ?
It isn't for one offence, it's used in recurrent offending
Really? So why have we seen it repeatedly being used for first offences on the TV, then?
cooperman said:
It's in complete contravention of the Bill of Rights and thus, basically, does not comply with English law. The Bill of Rights mandates, irrevocably, that there shall be no fine or forfeiture before conviction by a court of law.
Thought I had gone mute Peter 
I would be interested in how our resident
would handle this if a motorist calmly stated that seizure was illegal under the BOR 1689, the wording of which is as follows: "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;"
It's nice to see the Bill of Rights getting a mention.
Surely, confiscation should be viewed as the last resort rather than the first. I've read a few articles on the web where it looks as though it only takes a few persons to make complaints and form a "lynch mob" and then the police seem to act on the mob's behalf, before trial and/or conviction.
Surely, confiscation should be viewed as the last resort rather than the first. I've read a few articles on the web where it looks as though it only takes a few persons to make complaints and form a "lynch mob" and then the police seem to act on the mob's behalf, before trial and/or conviction.
buckshee said:
vonhosen said:
Like I said personally I wouldn't entertain using it where I didn't have sufficient evidence of an offence & was prosecuting for an offence under Sec 3 or 34 RTA 1988.
vonhosen,
So you you wouldn't entertain confiscation if you didn't have enough evidence and when you prosecute under Sec 3 or 34 of the RTA 1988.
But, then we have:
^Slider^ said:
I know of cases and have done so myself. I dont know of any links to anything..
Slider,
In what circumstances have you confiscated vehicles? Why has Sec 3 or 34 of the RTA 1988 been inappropriate in these cases of confiscation?
I'm just interested in understanding how our justice system operates at the "sharp end".
Many thanks.
Buckshee,
The circumstances where i have issues S59 Warnings and also used S60 seizure are such that where i have witnessed a vehicles being driven in such a manor to have been dangerous or careless driving and they are committing section 5 poa offence. For example i have seized motorbikes / mini motorbikes which have been driven on pavements (these were uninsured, unlicensed riders often not old enough to have a license which are tearing up and down the same road or around the same estate) Also vehicles displaying in public carparks during the daytime or in residential areas.
The said drivers are also reported for prosecution for the driving offences and public order offences.
I dont do it when i cannot prove either their driving or the public order offence, i want both offences to be complete before i consider warning or seizure. And i also would want corroborating evidence so it is not just my word against theirs.
The powers can be used one of 2 ways. I use it as a tool where the warning has not worked and its a repetition of the original offence. The people i deal with are not your usual upstanding members of the community, they are repeat offenders whom show no regret or remorse for their behavoiur with vehicles where the only way to stop it is to seize the vehicle and give the local residents a break from the grief that they suffer at the hands of some of these people.
Terrorism laws asside.
The S59 and 60 laws do have a place. But its the way its implimented that is the issue. That sometimes is down to the way the police works, its the new big thing and we must use it effectively is the rules from above, new officers see this as an order, older oficers use it as another tool in the bag should it be needed.
The S59 and 60 laws do have a place. But its the way its implimented that is the issue. That sometimes is down to the way the police works, its the new big thing and we must use it effectively is the rules from above, new officers see this as an order, older oficers use it as another tool in the bag should it be needed.
Slider,
I can accept that in the case of delinquents and scrotes, confiscation of property which may well prove not to be theirs in the first place, might be a successful way of dealing with a problem. However, in the case of someone who owns their own vehicle and is taxed and fully insured and with a legitimate driving license, when is confiscation applied? In the latter case, would confiscation be temporary and retrieval of possession upon payment of a fee by the legitimate owner be available in ALL cases, or are there occasions when confiscation is absolute and final, even before or after any alleged offences are tried in court.
I can accept that in the case of delinquents and scrotes, confiscation of property which may well prove not to be theirs in the first place, might be a successful way of dealing with a problem. However, in the case of someone who owns their own vehicle and is taxed and fully insured and with a legitimate driving license, when is confiscation applied? In the latter case, would confiscation be temporary and retrieval of possession upon payment of a fee by the legitimate owner be available in ALL cases, or are there occasions when confiscation is absolute and final, even before or after any alleged offences are tried in court.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff