Section 59

[Gbaker]

Hi

I got pulled over by the police last night for "taking a corner to fast" and was (I think) given a section 59. I say think because all the copper asked me was if I'd had a drink and if my car was insured. He didn't take my name or address or anything and didn't give me any ticket or paperwork. He told me that my numberplate had now been logged and if I was pulled over again, my car would be seized.
This seemed a little strange as I would think that at least some paperwork would be involved as they give out tickets for everything these days.
I was just wondering if anybody else has had a section 59 and if this is what happened to them or if they got a ticket.

Thanks

 

[CLXCraig]

dont think they can stop you and not issue a ticket. and if they dont im sure they cant say your car will get seized next time. if the were no defects with your car i guess they just thought you looked a bit sus so pulled you.

someone will be able to confirm for sure.

 

[Papa P]

taken from a MINI forum:

It all rather sounds like the Policeman thought that he *might* have enough for a "without due consideration for other road users" charge (careless driving, section 3 RTA), but not enough to actually charge you.

OK, I've had to go and look up section 59, because it wasn't what I thought it was. What *I* thought it was (and I'm an ASBO specialist) was a way for the Police to deal with nuisances, like abandoned cars, "cruises" and burn-outs on the local sink estate.

Section 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).

(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).

Ah - I see. What was designed as a provision to clamp down on cruises gives the Police the right to circumvent the presumption of innocence in the criminal courts and forget the charges, and just seize your car. Hmph - I *really* can't see that passing muster in the Divisional Court.

My opinion - the requirement under section 59 that your use of the vehicle "causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public" is absolute, and means that the Police have to demonstrate some wider anti-social behaviour aspect; they can't just issue notices willy-nilly for cutting someone up at a roundabout.

Now there's a school of thought which says "let sleeping dogs lie" - that the more fuss you create, the more likely they are to decide to start seizing/charging people with careless driving.

But if it were *my* car that had just been given a notice by some over-zealous copper who doesn't understand what the law actually means, and thinks that it's some way to take my car off me without bringing charges or allowing me to test the evidence, I'd be down the station in a flash, having a word with the duty inspector; if I felt generous, I'd be offering them some training on what the law actually means, and if not I'd be putting complaints in writing to the Chief Constable followed by a quick application for Judicial Review (which isn't quick, s very expensive, and would not go well for the Police if all they could say was that I might have inconvenienced a lorry driver).

 

[udtrev]

he law don't just use them on 'cruises', they like to pin them on anyone offroading who is caught off the unmarked track


Trev

 

[ThisBitterPill]

....and would not go well for the Police if all they could say was that I might have inconvenienced a lorry driver.

How on earth did you deduce that from the OP saying they were pulled over for "taking a corner too fast"....?

 

[Chas Uno]

From what I understand, Section 59 is a Policeman noting that you've been driving like a dick. Rather than prosecuting you, you're only getting a warning but your details have been logged. If you get caught driving like a dick again by another Policeman then he can see whether you've already been noted for doing this. Repeat offenders can then have subsequent action taken against them.

I wish the Police exercised it more on idiot drivers who drive like bell-ends...

And Papa P, how on earth can you know that the Copper was overzealous? He might have been lenient on the OP and spared him a fine and points, but warned him that next time he won't be so lucky as his details have been noted.

 

[johnw]

My opinion - the requirement under section 59 that your use of the vehicle "causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public" is absolute,

The important part of S59 is "has reasonable grounds for believing". So there is no requirement for proof of any kind, its all down to the opinion of the officer at the time. Note that the police don't have to witness the driving for themselves and can act on information received if they so wish.

and means that the Police have to demonstrate some wider anti-social behaviour aspect;

Sadly they don't.

they can't just issue notices willy-nilly for cutting someone up at a roundabout.

sadly they can.

 

[Papa P]

Sorry folks, my entire last post was just a quick cut and paste from a post on a mini forum when i went searching for what a "Section 59" was and it seemed to tie in with what the OP had posted about being stopped for something innocuous and threatened with it!

I didnt have time to edit the post before the boss came back, hence why it refers to the offence the mini driver had been stopped for.

 

[volxstu]

Oh dear not this conversation again. IMO it is a ridiculous law. The police can steal your car without valid reason but they cant arrest and charge somebody for violent or threatening crimes until its too late

 

[johnw]

Exactly right.

This is just the latest step in the governments attempt to run the justice system on the cheap by doing away with the idea of justice. Last year more than half of all penalties imposed by the justice system were imposed outside of a courtroom by people who have been allowed to be witness, investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge. Recent changes now allow the crown prosecution to sentence cases without the tiresome need to go to court. This will get worse - a lot worse.

 

[volxstu]

What so to save money they can send somebody to prison without them being present. They then have to pay more officers to go find them or take our already stretched bobbies off the beet to go do it.

 

[johnw]

What so to save money they can send somebody to prison without them being present. They then have to pay more officers to go find them or take our already stretched bobbies off the beet to go do it.

Should have said some cases not all. So far only a court can send you to custody. When that happens the prison then sends them home early

 

[pooroldcodger]

Should have said some cases not all. So far only a court can send you to custody. When that happens the prison then sends them home early

John W, I have not been on the forum for a while, and comparing your replies with those of a few months ago I would say the system is wearing you down and you are becoming almost as sceptical as us lay-folk!
Keep your chin up old son! You're doing your bit.

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

To have car siezed you have to have 2 section 59's in a set period of time (according to the boy racer scene lads at college). Can't remember what the time period is though.

I'll try and find out.

 

[GhostWKD]

2 years

I once got a section 59 for revving my engine at traffic lights on the way into a cruise, oh the days of my youth

 

[volxstu]

^^^ Yesterday then aye

Saying that some officer threatened to take action against me the other day. Was siting up Mc D's with a mate having an innocent cup of coffee as we do every now and then. After about 10 minutes we was surrounded by boy racers. :bang: Idiots "Why did we park here on a friday night"
Anyway the boy racers do their thing, nobody was driving about like an idiot just a few guys and girls having a look at each others cars. No problem here i thought so we just stayed where we were.
Another few minutes later out comes the security guard from Sainsbury's and starts writing down people's number plates.
Now i turn round to him and say "WTF do you think you are doing. I know that we are on your property but what right do you have to take peoples number plates. Do you have suitable documentation that would suggest that you are allowed to do this. For all i know you could now go and sell these to crims so they can clone my plates."
So he and all the boy racers hot step out leaving me and friend to finish coffee.
Once finished we decide to go to the pub for a bevy and proceed to leave the car park. Me being me giving my usual 3 high revs before leaving. Mainly because i love the sound of the car lol but partly because my front batt is on its last legs and i find that the voltage floats a lot higher for longer after a good old rev before pulling off.
So as we exit i see the old bill in a marked car talking to the security guard and the shop manager. Needless to say i went a bit bananas. Its 10p, on a friday. I happen to know that Thanet rarely has enough bobbies on the beat and why on earth are there 2 up at a car park when nobody has done anything wrong. Now i wouldnt call these boy racers my best friends but what a waste of police time. I started the whole i pay my taxes and this is how you fing spend them.
All they could say is you revved your engine we could do you for that. Needless to say the response i had was not to their liking.

So sorry for the essay, but my point is if this security guard has written my number plate down twice, the police can confiscate my car for absolutely no reason. WTF!!! They may respond by saying that we will still use our discretion, but the still responded when they were called because a couple of cars parked up and started having a chat. I certainly dont trust the police's discretion if they do that at short notice.

I have heard of people phoning the Police because people are trying to run them off the road and chasing them at 100mph in 30 zones and 50 turn round and say ok we will send somebody to your house for a chat tomo.

 

[GhostWKD]

Lol! Well apparently according to the guys i work with 23 isnt early 20's anymore, so i cant pull off the youth look anymore

 

[volxstu]

Damn well im older than you

 

[johnw]

To have car siezed you have to have 2 section 59's in a set period of time (according to the boy racer scene lads at college). Can't remember what the time period is though.
I'll try and find out.

you will find it in section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002. To save you looking it up - its 12 months. Bear in mind that there is no minimum interval between warnings, so you could get a warning and have the car seized two minutes later if you don't stop doing whatever it was that was annoying the officer.

 

[johnw]

2 years

12 months. See section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002.