Section 59

WillyNelson said:
I'm a bit confused by this. Reading up on S.59 it can only be issued where the vehicle is likley to be causing distress AND is in contravention of either S.3 or S.34. As you were on a road and the officer confirmed that no S.3 offence was committed the S.59 shouldn't have been issued.

Plod in not understanding the laws shocker.
Click to expand...

I may have got this wrong so please correct me but:

I overtook a police officer.
He considered it was an in inconsiderate manner.
This caused him inconvenience. Apparently.

So I have fulfilled both parts of what is required for a Section 59 in his eyes, depending on the interpretation of "distress". I think.

Durzel said:
Bear in mind you will now get stopped all the time by any cop who has that ANPR equipment in their car.
Click to expand...

As mentioned, since the warning I've been stopped twice. They were pleasant enough, if life is that lonely for them I don't mind spending a bit of time with them, I'm taking one for the community.
 
Fett said:
This caused him inconvenience. Apparently.

So I have fulfilled both parts of what is required for a Section 59 in his eyes, depending on the interpretation of "distress". I think.
Click to expand...

It could have simply annoyed him, rather than caused him inconvience.

Although I wonder if he would be classed as a MoP:
is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public
Click to expand...
 
Burnsy2023 said:
It could have simply annoyed him, rather than caused him inconvience.

Although I wonder if he would be classed as a MoP:
Click to expand...

I don't doubt for a second it annoyed him personally, but I doubt he'll retract anything on the basis of it just being annoying rather than being inconvenienced. Would not know where to start to even try and prove the difference in this case.
 
Fett said:
I don't doubt for a second it annoyed him personally, but I doubt he'll retract anything on the basis of it just being annoying rather than being inconvenienced. Would not know where to start to even try and prove the difference in this case.
Click to expand...

I assume inconvenienced would require them to be directly affected by the incident; annoyed would not or would require tertiary actions.
 
Kermit said:
The policemans new line that "he had to brake" surely doesn't make sense if you think about it, as if you overtook him then by my calculations that means your must be travelling faster than him and so when you pulled back in you'd still be moving away from him so why would he need to brake?

[unless you decided to brake test him :p]
Click to expand...

very good point.
 
Phantom said:
Did he say he was the one distressed by your manoeuvre or the coach driver?
Click to expand...

Neither. It was the possibility of causing distress or alarm. I could have caused distress if x, y and z were in place but no consideration seems to be given that the action would not have occurred under different circumstances.

Burnsy2023 said:
I assume inconvenienced would require them to be directly affected by the incident; annoyed would not or would require tertiary actions.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the direct of action of his apparent braking is what is considered an inconvenience.

Duke said:
I'd never heard of it until now & it does seem pretty lame.
Click to expand...

If applied properly, I would be all for it. I don't live in area where kids go haring across footpaths and public parks on scooters but I would imagine it's unpleasant for parents and the elderly. Same for the retards who drive like loons around town at 2am.

It seems to be abused though by an element of police, using it for minor motoring indiscretions and even then they are not sure of what they can or can't use it for.

Motorcyclists not charged with any criminal offence are being handed warning notices by police threatening to seize their bikes.
The warnings are issued under legislation designed to tackle anti-social behaviour. They state riders have broken traffic laws and warn their motorcycles will be impounded if caught again.
Motorcyclists say officers working for controversial police chief Richard Brunstrom are abusing the powers by handing the warnings to riders who have committed no offence.
MCN reader Richard Edwards, 52, from Telford, says he and a friend were both given warnings for no other reason than they were spotted riding near another motorcyclist who broke laws by crossing a solid white line to overtake.
Edwards said riders on the other side of the road were also being handed warnings, in what appeared to be a blanket action aimed at driving motorcyclists out of North Wales. The engineer, who has a clean licence, said: "As far as I'm concerned this is a 'stay out of North Wales' ticket."
The warnings state motorcyclists have ridden inconsiderately or carelessly in a way which either has or is likely to cause 'alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public'.
They go on: 'If you drive the vehicle in the same way on any other occasion, I can seize the vehicle under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002.'
North Wales Police claimed in a statement: 'Where appropriate, North Wales Police have been utilising Section 59 of the Police Reform Act on all sections of the motoring public since it came into being and will continue to do so.
‘Section 59 is a stand-alone power and officers can use their discretion when dealing with motorists under this power. The warning does not require offenders to be reported for or dealt with separately for the careless driving element. However, neither does it prevent the police from pursuing a prosecution and issuing the S59 notice.’
The force admitted three out of four warnings issued on September 21 were to motorcyclists.
Click to expand...

Police forums are the place to look if you can get past the atrocious spelling for other S59 blunders.

I'm not sure what % of the revenue the police take from the seizure fee, but it's interesting to see that the NW Police have base and stretch targets to meet and fulfill. Specifically in this instance, a 10% increase required in S59 warnings issued for 07/08, not sure about 08/09 figures.
 
Kermit said:
The policemans new line that "he had to brake" surely doesn't make sense if you think about it, as if you overtook him then by my calculations that means your must be travelling faster than him and so when you pulled back in you'd still be moving away from him so why would he need to brake?

[unless you decided to brake test him :p]
Click to expand...

Insinuation being I left very little room and entered what he considered to be his safe braking zone.
 
Will Gill said:
£115 towing fee, and a warning if I get one more all my offences will be added together and "considered" for prosecution.

total farce
Click to expand...

What I was meant to ask was did you get anything back for your troubles? If the case was thrown out of court did you get the towing fee back and an apology or are you saying your appeal was thrown out?
 
DrDee said:
What I was meant to ask was did you get anything back for your troubles? If the case was thrown out of court did you get the towing fee back and an apology or are you saying your appeal was thrown out?
Click to expand...

lol no chance, the rejection of prosecution just confirmed to me how crap and pathetic these "offences" actually are in the eyes of the CPS.

afaik you would never get compensation from a driving offence court appearance, its either guilty - points, not guilty - no points

just my uneducated brain summising though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom