Discussion
Wonders which vehicle id is posted in the scanned notice.
If it's not the vehicle actually driven contrary to S3 then surely von's argument in practice falls flat on its arse, as then both the alleged AACer and his vehicle are subject to a notice. Could be grasping wrong end of stick I admit.
If it's not the vehicle actually driven contrary to S3 then surely von's argument in practice falls flat on its arse, as then both the alleged AACer and his vehicle are subject to a notice. Could be grasping wrong end of stick I admit.
I don't think von is trying to justify (at least not any more) the OP getting a S59 notice for his own vehicle, just that in theory it might be possible for him to get a S59 notice for someone else's driving that might be contrary to S3 if the OP encouraged the driver to commit the offence. The S59 notice would relate to the car being driven rather than his own car. One driver, one car, two S59s.
His argument is a bit of a red herring in that respect.
If you believe that any legislation that applies to the driver of a car committing a S3 offence automatically applies to anyone encouraging him to commit the offence because he would also be guilty of S3, (unless the legislation explicitly mentions the opposite) then von's assertion is credible.
However, S59 refers to the person 'using' the car throughout. That 'use' cannot be imputed to the person encouraging the S3 offence just because he will also be guilty of a S3 offence based on the driving of the actual driver. That premise is flawed.
Note in particular para 4
(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;
The warning must be to the person using the vehicle not anyone who is not using it but guilty of AACPing the offence.
The person who AACPs the offence cannot be warned in relation to the use of the vehicle in the commission of the offence.
and at para (5),seizing without warning.
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 ... on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
Again, only the person using the vehicle in contravention of S3 can lead to seizure of it.
S59 clearly applies to the driver of the vehicle and although another individual may AACP the S3 offence and consequently also be guilty of S3, the authority to issue warnings and seize the vehicle is restricted to the driver - or user -only.
The OP's warning makes no sense whatsoever because the warning relates to his own vehicle which was not suspected of being used in a S3 offence.
His argument is a bit of a red herring in that respect.
If you believe that any legislation that applies to the driver of a car committing a S3 offence automatically applies to anyone encouraging him to commit the offence because he would also be guilty of S3, (unless the legislation explicitly mentions the opposite) then von's assertion is credible.
However, S59 refers to the person 'using' the car throughout. That 'use' cannot be imputed to the person encouraging the S3 offence just because he will also be guilty of a S3 offence based on the driving of the actual driver. That premise is flawed.
Note in particular para 4
(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;
The warning must be to the person using the vehicle not anyone who is not using it but guilty of AACPing the offence.
The person who AACPs the offence cannot be warned in relation to the use of the vehicle in the commission of the offence.
and at para (5),seizing without warning.
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 ... on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
Again, only the person using the vehicle in contravention of S3 can lead to seizure of it.
S59 clearly applies to the driver of the vehicle and although another individual may AACP the S3 offence and consequently also be guilty of S3, the authority to issue warnings and seize the vehicle is restricted to the driver - or user -only.
The OP's warning makes no sense whatsoever because the warning relates to his own vehicle which was not suspected of being used in a S3 offence.
Edited by Zeeky on Monday 20th February 08:57
Zeeky said:
The OP's warning makes no sense whatsoever because the warning relates to his own vehicle which was not suspected of being used in a S3 offence.
It does make sense as it's happened before and been overturned by the relevant chief constable (as this is outside the courts the only person with authority (except maybe the Officer)). It seems to be that the 'likely to' is being applied to the first part rather than the second part, both being required to make the s59 completeYou can see that even the form doesnt help the Officer with its irrelevant selection boxes
As has been alluded to already, the wording of the s59 notice sent to the OP also supports the point that AACers are not targetted by it.
Words to the effect "You have been driving...contrary to..."
It is clearly aimed at someone who has been driving and commiting a sec 3, not someone who was committing the offence of AACing another to sec 3.
What is said about the issue in the relevant article(s) of the Police National Legal Database?
Words to the effect "You have been driving...contrary to..."
It is clearly aimed at someone who has been driving and commiting a sec 3, not someone who was committing the offence of AACing another to sec 3.
What is said about the issue in the relevant article(s) of the Police National Legal Database?
Here mel 
Zeeky said:
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
44.— Aiders and abettors.
(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence and may be tried (whether or not he is charged as a principal) either by a court having jurisdiction to try that other person or by a court having by virtue of his own offence jurisdiction to try him
44.— Aiders and abettors.
(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence and may be tried (whether or not he is charged as a principal) either by a court having jurisdiction to try that other person or by a court having by virtue of his own offence jurisdiction to try him
Thanks mate,
Well I'm really lost now then
simply because everything there comes from the "magistrates court act" and refers to "tried" and "court" that's the whole argument about how bad Sect 59 is, there is no "Court" or "Trial" only punishment enforced but Judge Dredd style policing, how can anyone extract bits of legislation and apply them as it suits when then don't have anything to do with each other?
Well I'm really lost now then
simply because everything there comes from the "magistrates court act" and refers to "tried" and "court" that's the whole argument about how bad Sect 59 is, there is no "Court" or "Trial" only punishment enforced but Judge Dredd style policing, how can anyone extract bits of legislation and apply them as it suits when then don't have anything to do with each other?F i F said:
Maybe I missed this earlier in the thread, if so apologies* , but I am somewhat unclear why a document which is clearly titled a warning notice under S59 Police Reform Act has tick boxes for offences which are nothing to do with S3 or S34 offences. E.g no MOT, no insurance and so on.
Other perfectly suitable legislation for these.
"Future-proofing"?Other perfectly suitable legislation for these.
Streaky
Zeeky said:
I don't think von is trying to justify (at least not any more) the OP getting a S59 notice for his own vehicle, just that in theory it might be possible for him to get a S59 notice for someone else's driving that might be contrary to S3 if the OP encouraged the driver to commit the offence. The S59 notice would relate to the car being driven rather than his own car. One driver, one car, two S59s.
What do you mean not any more. Please show me where I have mentioned it rather than you have just made assumptions in relation to that.Zeeky said:
If you believe that any legislation that applies to the driver of a car committing a S3 offence automatically applies to anyone encouraging him to commit the offence because he would also be guilty of S3, (unless the legislation explicitly mentions the opposite) then von's assertion is credible.
However, S59 refers to the person 'using' the car throughout. That 'use' cannot be imputed to the person encouraging the S3 offence just because he will also be guilty of a S3 offence based on the driving of the actual driver. That premise is flawed.
Please show me where in Sec 59(1), 59(2) OR 59(3) it refers to 'the person using' as you contend it does so throughout.However, S59 refers to the person 'using' the car throughout. That 'use' cannot be imputed to the person encouraging the S3 offence just because he will also be guilty of a S3 offence based on the driving of the actual driver. That premise is flawed.
Zeeky said:
Note in particular para 4
(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;
I haven't suggested the vehicle be seized on the basis of the AACPers Sec 3 in the first instance.(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;
Zeeky said:
The warning must be to the person using the vehicle not anyone who is not using it but guilty of AACPing the offence.
Can you please show us the authority for that staement.Zeeky said:
The person who AACPs the offence cannot be warned in relation to the use of the vehicle in the commission of the offence.
Can you please show us where the legislation says that or the authority for it.Zeeky said:
and at para (5),seizing without warning.
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 ... on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
Which would be the case if the AACPer were to be guilty of a second Sec 3 this time using the vehicle in the first instance, or any other vehicle including his own.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 ... on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
Zeeky said:
Again, only the person using the vehicle in contravention of S3 can lead to seizure of it.
In our hypothetical case the original vehicle could be seized if it were again used in a Sec 3 (that also satisfied the second element) if driven by the driver from the first instance or indeed any other driver (including the AACPer from the first instance).Also in our hypothetical case any vehicle could be seized it were used in a Sec 3 (that also satisfied the second element) if driven by the driver from the first instance, the AACper from the first instance or indeed anyone who is already subject of a Sec 59 in the last 12 months.
Zeeky said:
S59 clearly applies to the driver of the vehicle and although another individual may AACP the S3 offence and consequently also be guilty of S3, the authority to issue warnings and seize the vehicle is restricted to the driver - or user -only.
Again please sow the authority for that statement. It exists for seizing but not warning.Zeeky said:
The OP's warning makes no sense whatsoever because the warning relates to his own vehicle which was not suspected of being used in a S3 offence.
I haven't made comment in relation to the OP's case on the discussed matter of AACPing, only on how I interpret the law as written in relation to the wider discussion.Of course, Von- now would be the opportune moment to introduce the Legal Advice given to Police, any cases or even Case Law that refer to someone being lawfully noticed under s59 where they were AACPing another driver to qualify.
On a related note, were the AACP to be too serious for s59, what would the contravention actually be?
Would the person be charged under the Mags Act 1980 for AA a section 3 offence?
On a related note, were the AACP to be too serious for s59, what would the contravention actually be?
Would the person be charged under the Mags Act 1980 for AA a section 3 offence?
10 Pence Short said:
Of course, Von- now would be the opportune moment to introduce the Legal Advice given to Police, any cases or even Case Law that refer to someone being lawfully noticed under s59 where they were AACPing another driver to qualify.
On a related note, were the AACP to be too serious for s59, what would the contravention actually be?
Would the person be charged under the Mags Act 1980 for AA a section 3 offence?
The wording for a charge is pretty much the same as any section 3 other than of course it will specify that you aided, abetted counselled or procured a named individual .On a related note, were the AACP to be too serious for s59, what would the contravention actually be?
Would the person be charged under the Mags Act 1980 for AA a section 3 offence?
The charge will be read & stated as contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, Sec 44 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
How serious doesn't come into it, the Sec 59 can of course be given in addition to a Sec 3 charge/summons. It's not a case of one or other (though it's possible to do either/or & both).
Absolutely.
What I'm getting at, as I'm sure you're aware, is that the aiding and abetting is an offence in its own right. If you're charged with aiding and abetting Careless Driving, you're not charged with Careless Driving and, if convicted, the offence code is not the same, either.
What I'm getting at, as I'm sure you're aware, is that the aiding and abetting is an offence in its own right. If you're charged with aiding and abetting Careless Driving, you're not charged with Careless Driving and, if convicted, the offence code is not the same, either.
10 Pence Short said:
Absolutely.
What I'm getting at, as I'm sure you're aware, is that the aiding and abetting is an offence in its own right. If you're charged with aiding and abetting Careless Driving, you're not charged with Careless Driving and, if convicted, the offence code is not the same, either.
It is an offence contrary to Sec 3 RTA (which is what Sec 59 is about) & then when you look at schedule 2 you are getting points on your licence for a Sec 3 offence & the offence code shown on your licence is a Sec 3 offence code (it is just distinguished as an aiding & abetting Sec 3 by having a different number following the letters for a Sec 3). CD10 is careless driving, you just change the last number to a 2 on the end for AACP, but it's still a CD1 offence code which is unique to careless driving. Only careless driving Sec 3 offences start with a CD1 offence code.What I'm getting at, as I'm sure you're aware, is that the aiding and abetting is an offence in its own right. If you're charged with aiding and abetting Careless Driving, you're not charged with Careless Driving and, if convicted, the offence code is not the same, either.
For the AACPer to be convicted there needs to be a use of a vehicle that amounts to a Sec 3. He is convicted due to the manner of driving by the driver, without it there can be no conviction.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 20th February 19:06
mel said:
Well bugger me sideways, I've never seen that before! Is it possible to get a frame for an iPad so I can hang it on the wall?
In all seriousness my respect for Von has just gone up even more, apart from being the font of almost all knowledge it takes a big man to say he was wrong.
Seconded in spades.In all seriousness my respect for Von has just gone up even more, apart from being the font of almost all knowledge it takes a big man to say he was wrong.
Sticks a virtual round behind the bar for von's enjoyment at his leisure.
10 Pence Short said:
I wonder where this leaves the OP's opinion?
Well this turned into a well rounded discussion! After lots of confusion I take it I am innocent and should contest the s59.I'll type up a letter tomorrow and find out who to send it to!
Edit: I've just read through the Zeeky v Von debate again and
to you guys!Edited by StottyZr on Monday 20th February 23:15
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff