Discussion
Hi,
I'm after some advice from any police officers etc on behalf of my mate.
He recently took his car along with another mate on a large area of common land a few miles from where he lived just generally sliding and messing around. Lots of people do drive on this land but obviously most are just taking dogs for a walk etc but to the best of my knowledge he was not breaking any laws actually driving on the land. Anyway somewhere along the line he was seen and the police called who then turned up and proceeded to stop my 2 mates. Not being there and having only been given sketchy details by my mates (having never been in trouble with the police before they were a bit taken aback and couldn't remember a great deal of what was said) they said how the police officers took their details before ordering them off the common and saying they may be recieveing a letter and maybe court summons in connection with section 59? As far as I'm aware they were not cautioned and did not sign anything on the spot. Does anybody know what the chances of further action being taken are and if so what form it would take as my one mate in particular is very worked up about the ordeal as he relies on his car to travel daily to university and having only held a licence for a few months obviously is dreading the outcome.
Thanks
I'm after some advice from any police officers etc on behalf of my mate.
He recently took his car along with another mate on a large area of common land a few miles from where he lived just generally sliding and messing around. Lots of people do drive on this land but obviously most are just taking dogs for a walk etc but to the best of my knowledge he was not breaking any laws actually driving on the land. Anyway somewhere along the line he was seen and the police called who then turned up and proceeded to stop my 2 mates. Not being there and having only been given sketchy details by my mates (having never been in trouble with the police before they were a bit taken aback and couldn't remember a great deal of what was said) they said how the police officers took their details before ordering them off the common and saying they may be recieveing a letter and maybe court summons in connection with section 59? As far as I'm aware they were not cautioned and did not sign anything on the spot. Does anybody know what the chances of further action being taken are and if so what form it would take as my one mate in particular is very worked up about the ordeal as he relies on his car to travel daily to university and having only held a licence for a few months obviously is dreading the outcome.
Thanks
Sec 34 Road Traffic Act 1988
34 Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle—
(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b) on any road being a footpath or bridleway,
he is guilty of an offence.
(2) It is not an offence under this section to drive a motor vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose only of parking the vehicle on that land.
(3) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that it was driven in contravention of this section for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency.
(4) It is hereby declared that nothing in this section prejudices the operation of—
(a) section 193 of the [1925 c. 20.] Law of Property Act 1925 (rights of the public over commons and waste lands), or
(b) any bye laws applying to any land,
or affects the law of trespass to land or any right or remedy to which a person may by law be entitled in respect of any such trespass or in particular confers a right to park a vehicle on any land.
Sec 59 Police Reform Act 2002
59 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).
(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.
34 Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle—
(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b) on any road being a footpath or bridleway,
he is guilty of an offence.
(2) It is not an offence under this section to drive a motor vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose only of parking the vehicle on that land.
(3) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that it was driven in contravention of this section for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency.
(4) It is hereby declared that nothing in this section prejudices the operation of—
(a) section 193 of the [1925 c. 20.] Law of Property Act 1925 (rights of the public over commons and waste lands), or
(b) any bye laws applying to any land,
or affects the law of trespass to land or any right or remedy to which a person may by law be entitled in respect of any such trespass or in particular confers a right to park a vehicle on any land.
Sec 59 Police Reform Act 2002
59 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).
(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.
Thanks vonhosen,
after reading that it seems he is probably guilty of the driving on commonland offence bit and maybe careless driving due to what he was doing but what are the chances of further action actually being taken. I actually got prosocuted for careless driving a while back due to a badly (their words) or very well (my words) timed overtake a while back but was actually cautioned on the spot and all the rest of it although I undertook a driver improvment course rather than recive a fine and points. Does anybody know what the chances of a similar thing happening to my mate are bearing in mind they wern't cautioned or anything on the spot??
after reading that it seems he is probably guilty of the driving on commonland offence bit and maybe careless driving due to what he was doing but what are the chances of further action actually being taken. I actually got prosocuted for careless driving a while back due to a badly (their words) or very well (my words) timed overtake a while back but was actually cautioned on the spot and all the rest of it although I undertook a driver improvment course rather than recive a fine and points. Does anybody know what the chances of a similar thing happening to my mate are bearing in mind they wern't cautioned or anything on the spot??
fastcaterham said:
Thanks vonhosen,
after reading that it seems he is probably guilty of the driving on commonland offence bit and maybe careless driving due to what he was doing but what are the chances of further action actually being taken. I actually got prosocuted for careless driving a while back due to a badly (their words) or very well (my words) timed overtake a while back but was actually cautioned on the spot and all the rest of it although I undertook a driver improvment course rather than recive a fine and points. Does anybody know what the chances of a similar thing happening to my mate are bearing in mind they wern't cautioned or anything on the spot??
When you say 'cautioned' unfortunately people interpret different meanings to the word all the time so I'm not sure how you are interpreting it.after reading that it seems he is probably guilty of the driving on commonland offence bit and maybe careless driving due to what he was doing but what are the chances of further action actually being taken. I actually got prosocuted for careless driving a while back due to a badly (their words) or very well (my words) timed overtake a while back but was actually cautioned on the spot and all the rest of it although I undertook a driver improvment course rather than recive a fine and points. Does anybody know what the chances of a similar thing happening to my mate are bearing in mind they wern't cautioned or anything on the spot??
Sec 34 is generally a FPN offence.
Sec 3 is not & you should be given a verbal NIP for it.
Sec 59 should result in a written notice if it's been formally recorded.
Did they receive no paperwork at all ?
If not they 'may' have got lucky & should just check in their ear !!
I've just spoken to him now and it seems he did indeed recive a warning slip with section 59 on it. When I say cautioned with me I had the "anything you say may be given in evidence..." talk and had to sign a statement as well as the officer telling me he was cautioning me whereas my mate says he recieved none of this.
Thanks again vonhosen
Thanks again vonhosen
fastcaterham said:
I've just spoken to him now and it seems he did indeed recive a warning slip with section 59 on it. When I say cautioned with me I had the "anything you say may be given in evidence..." talk and had to sign a statement as well as the officer telling me he was cautioning me whereas my mate says he recieved none of this.
Thanks again vonhosen
Well if he has not been questioned or said anything the caution bit is all a bit mute.Thanks again vonhosen
It could just be a case of offence pointed out & told was being reported for that offence. If he has been reported for summons he may not know for months, but make sure he is aware of the implications of the sec 59 notice in the mean time.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff