hi got pulled the other day by police officer she asked me what speed i was doing iwas doing i was doing about 59 which i thought was a 60 zone but its dropped down to a 50 for about 400 yards honest mistake but nor disputing that she stated i was doing 69 i asked do you have proof of that she stated her speed gun fell off her chair when she set off and reset itself so she cant prove that iwas doing 69 but she can give me a section 59 which is good that if i get done again she can confiscate my bike off me which is worrying as its not a cheap bike , section 59 reads i was driving mad and dangourously which i wasnt can i appeal against it thanks sean
Posts 15 | Views 1904
I trust you didn't accept the warning and told her you'd see her in court.
Section 59 warning.............
Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002, states a Constable or PCSO may seize a motor vehicle where he has reasonable grounds for believing that it is being or has been used:
In Contravention of Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Careless, Inconsiderate driving) OR Section 34 Road Traffic Act 1988 (Prohibition of off road driving) and Is causing or is likely to cause alarm and distress or annoyance to members of the public.
He may if the motor vehicle is moving, order the perosn driving it to stop the vehicle.
The legislation goes on a fair bit explaining that if you commit a further/similar offence in the proceeding 12 months blah police can seize the vehicle.
You have to understand that this in the 1st instance is a warning. The rozzer will complete a statement and have a report created against the registration number of the vehicle therefore if stopped again and the vehicle checked the officers will know you are subject of a 59 warning. As far as i am aware this cannot be challanged at court at this time but a letter to the chief constable or compalint may mean the matter is looked into. I am pretty sure that excess speed in itself does not constitute an offence of careless/inconsiderate driving!
Let us know how you get on. Good luck
Ninja is in some way right. The legislation only gives power to a police office in uniform, so if partly or in civies he/she cannot issue a verbal 59 warning.
It adds to sect 3 RTA 1988 about careless and inconsiderate driving [ and i suppose that includes also riding and any motor vehicle on a road] sect 34 includes off road activities likewise. THe legsislation originally was for driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration but got changed to inconsiderate instead.
It gives police powers to stop and give a verbal warning to anyone who actually contravenes sect 3 or who he has reasonablke grounds to believe is or has contravened sect 3. Not also that but the offender and i quote ' Is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.' unquote. It also covers past tense where an offence may or may not have happened.
This expands the sect 3 RTA into quite another area and gives a police officer again in uniform literally carte blanch to take details and issue a warning under sect 59 for lets face it, almost anything and everything, including the fact that he/she doesnt like your face or in the belief that at some time in the next twelve months u will be spoken to again by a police officer for anything and low and behold they find the original warning.bobs your uncle your bikes seized, because they can.
I dont think the law was meant for general motorcyclists, but if u ride through a quiet village and there have been complaints re motorcyclists before, u could be the one stopped and done under sect 59.
What is the comeback?..... if issued verbally with a sect 59, details will be recorded on police computer and will last at least for 12 months, if on another occasion within that period u are stopped, a different police officer may decide to remove your vehicle off the road as punishment. No recourse to the Courts. AT ALL !!!!!!!
ON either occasion u may write a letter to the chief of police but it probably wont do any good,he will support his officer, wont he.
Unless the law boffins have a response or it happens and somehow works and the sect 59 is removed.
Ps it doesnt matter if on the second occasion one is on or in a different vehicle or it is the same vehicle driven or riden by someone else, the law will confiscate.
Come on MNC give it some thought otherwise your readership will deteriorate somewhat in next few years.
It would appear that if a luckless police officer, like the female that could not provide proof of your speeding, stopped u for reason they could issue u with a verbal sect 59....... JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN AT ANY TIME and because they couldnt and dont have to prove any offences against u.
And dont anyone say that would never happen.
If u do u live in cloud cuckoo land.
so BEWARE OUT THERE.
Rcraven, dont know where you getting your info from but you aint got a clue about the practical application of the legislation!!!
Rcraven, dont know where you getting your info from but you aint got a clue about the practical application of the legislation!!!
What did i say about cloud cuckoo land.
I have read the legislation and also had a report back from a solicitor specialising in traffic law.
I was a police officer for 20yrs and now how the system works or can be made to work. and i believe this piece of legislation may and will be subject to abuse by certain police officers and or constabularies.
Dont get me wrong if there is wrong doing then it should be dealt with through the justice system which includes the courts and a persons right of trial. not by a judge and jury police officer or god forbid civilian acting as a police officer.where there is no accountability through the courts. I believe that the majority would be with me on this.
Not even ASBO's are as easy.as this piece of legislation.
This is disgusting, come on MCN, get on it! (please)
Hi I know this is an old thread but I saw it (and some similar) and thought I would point out / correct some of the misunderstandings.
Consider first that the Sec 59 legislation was chiefly introduced to deal with the (then) escalating problem of 'Cruises' and off-road motorcyclists / 4x4ers etc using commons land or bridlepaths, but the way it is written allows the police to deal with smaller scale problems too.
**Who can issue a warning? **PCs or PCSOs in uniform.
Who / what does the warning apply to? The driver for 12 months / The vehicle for that 'occasion' (Think of this at a cruise - the owner gets a Sec 59 (eg for doing donuts), so he stops, but lets his mate then do it 10 mins later. The car can be seized. However, two weeks later at the next cruise, if the owner does it again, it can be seized, but if his mate does - he should be served a warning (lasting 12 months) but the car then is under warning on that occasion. Similarly if two weeks later the car comes back with a new owner, he has never been warned, so if he donuts, he will be warned - the car is never under a twelve month warning - only the driver(s).
Does the warning have to be given before a seizure? Generally,Yes unless it is not practicable to do so. (If you read the legislation Sec 59(5)(b)
> only one warning need really be given at a cruise or motorcycle meeting and everyone has been warned!!
Does the warning have to be in writing? Yes - but does not have to be in writing at the time of the warning.
Does a Sec 3 (Due Care etc) or Sec 34 (Off-Road) offence have to be prosecuted for the Sec 59 warning to be imposed? No, the PC/PSCO only has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that such an offence has been committed (he doesn't even have to have seen it - he could receive a complaint from a member of the public). Even if he has seen someone committing a Sec 3 offence he does not have to prosecute it. The CPS threshold for prosecuting Sec 3 is quite high, but lower scale offences still meet the definition of careless or inconsiderate driving. e.g The police rarely prosecute the offending driver at a minor rear shunt RTC at a roundabout - but the driver was still careless wasn't he?!) The officer may consider a verbal warning or ticking off as sufficient method of 'prosecution' particularly if he is issuing a Sec 59 warning - but the manner of driving must also be anti-social '_causing, or likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public' _and the police will probably judge this on the basis of what they receive complaints about - so wheel spinning, fast driving for the area/conditions, over revving, riding on footpaths, etc could all meet this.
Sec 59 continued
**Can you appeal or plead not guilty to the warning? **Not under the Police Reform Act, because you're not being prosecuted, but merely warned not to drive / ride in that manner - if you don't you have nothing to worry about. However, if you think you might get caught driving/ riding like that within a year, and want another chance, try writing a letter to the chief constable to get the warning removed. He should task a specialist to review the issuing officers evidence / grounds. If the officer cannot provide grounds meeting the requirement for a warning it will be removed, but as the grounds only have to be thin, the response will probably be - "the warning will be removed after a year (if you prove over the next that you don't drive irresponsibly). The only other way to appeal would be to apply to the high court for a judical review.
If my car get seized can I appeal? Again not under the act, you have not been prosecuted through the court. You would have to pay £150 + £20 per day to get the car back, then write to the police to persuade them that they were wrong to issue the initial warning or seize the vehicle and that they should reimburse you. Now that you have lost money, you could try this at the small claims court. You do not have to pay for recovery if you own the vehicle but it wasn't seized from you and you could not have reasonably prevented its use in the manner for which it was seized.
Can I be given a Sec 59 warning for playing loud music sat in a car park? NO! The vehicle has to be**driven **in a careless / inconsiderate manner. - Its about the standard of driving, not the volume of the music!
Can I be given a Sec 59 Waring for driving with loud music/exhaust? Perhaps, because noise levels are part of driving, but you can also get a ticket for using a vehicle causing excessive noise.
**Can I be given a Sec 59 warning for spinning my wheels away from a junction? **Yes - you're technically skidding, and / or reducing control of the vehicle, its careless and anti-social, think of the neighbours! You might even get a ticket too, depending on how long the wheelspin was for. (Compare this to wheelying on a bike - you would probably be reported to go to court for Dangerous riding).
The police only place a report against the car because it point out that someone was given a warning using that car.
So, you cant 'tell her you'll see her in court when she warns you.
Speed alone CAN but is not always enough to be careless. (80 in a 30 would be careless even on a deserted street at night, but not in a 60 out in the countryside on a straight road.).
----further to the last reply,
there has to be a complaint from a third party,(not the police officer) although it does not have to be in writing at the time.
Section 4b states that for the first offence a warning should be given and this is policy for ACPO. A police officer can not take you vehicle for the first offence. In the case of speeding this legislation should not be used as there is adequate legislation included in the Road traffic act.
If you get stopped and the cops start spouting sec 59 ask who made the complaint. Most coppers dont know that this applies but i do as I spent 2 years teaching this legislation when I was a copper myself. Glad Im out of it now
Oh dear oh dear...
Two "Police Officers" and several other trying to tell all what s59 is all about and NONE of them got it right
S59 is bad law. It should be repealed. Almost every police authority area has different guidelines on how it should be used..
The worst is in Wales where they accept phone calls from the public ? as "evidence" needed to prosecute the law.. I.E. make the s59 warning to the registered keeper and register it on the PNC..
The Act states: well read it for yourself here:
I dont have enough space to explain it here..but short story is that you must be comitting an offence of :
s3 or s34 Road Traffic Act : Careless and or inconsiderate driving or prohidition of driving off road,
the manner of that use is causing or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public. (NOT a Police Officer).
Then an officer in uniform (Now a PCSO as well) can issue you with a warning. If a simular offence under s59 is comitted by you or someone using the vehicle in the first offence, then the Police Officer In Uniform**MAY **seize the vehicle to prevent a further continuance of the offence. There is also a right to enter onto/into property other than a dwelling house to seize a vehicle within 24hrs of the offence being reported...
Bad bits are: NO recource to complain within the Act. No right to appeal. You can buy a vehicle that already has a warning and get it seized on YOUR first "offence" that does not have to be witnessed by an officer, just a phone call to complain, not recorded, not by way of a "statement".
If you are using a vehicle "off road" but in a manner that would not cause alarm or distress or annoyance to a member of the public if it was on the local high street you CANT or rather should NOT get a s59 warning.. but the power is being abused by all police areas.. it is BAD LAW and should be amended or repealed.
The bad law part.
I know of a certain area where kids on scooters riding around an empty car park away from houses and people and certainly not badly, just buzzing up and down, are given S59s.
As far as I'm concerned they're not riding badly, they're away from anyone else and generally causing no harm to anyone.
S59 was well meaning but needed to be too open and unfortunately the spirit of the law means nothing these days. It's all about handing out paperwork to show they're doing something. If I were a copper I'd spend most of my time bollocking people rather than handing out tickets as that often make more of a difference.
Surely a vehicle seizure would fall foul of Article 6 of the HRA? Presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and all that... Heck, application for judicial review with reference to the HRA would have a fair chance of changing/repealing that statute.
As with most bad laws it needs someone with the finances (and courage) to stand up for themselves which regrettably is a luxury most cannot afford.