Fail to stop...

[drmike]

Doesn't the section 59 go with the car as well so that when I buy it in all good faith and ignorance and drive in a manner that annoys a police officer and I get a Section 59 then I'll lose the car?

I don't like Section 59 one bit - it's not fair on serving police officers to be judge and jury and to get it right every time. They are after all human and it only takes two of them to look askance aat your behaviour and think 'a section 59 will learn him' and you've lost your car which won't have been their intention at all.

In the example cited originally I can't see why the failing to stop was an issue. Was it indicated he should - it's simple yes or no. If he had been then he failed to stop. It's just as black & white as deciding the Section 59 except he can go to court and put his side of the story which seems to be justice.

Section 59 and its ilk put in place by quick fix politicians stinks - all in IMHO.

Mike

[MuddyMike]

Having been involved with assisting emergency services during floods in my old home county of Norfolk a few years ago. The most annoying aspect of vehicles trying to drive through floods was the wash they caused. Ok a truck can drive through 18 inches of water and get away with it, but the wash they cause sends waves of water over, and sometimes destroying carefully built sand bag barrages.

Ok it can be fun to drive through floodwater, but just think of the damage your wash might be causing.

Mike

[Boggert]

I agree with the 59 being on the car and some poor sod buying the vehicle and not knowing its there is unfair, couldn't agree more. However these show up on ANPR so it needs to be there.
If you find one on your car, just apply to the issuing police force to get it removed. they may be able to help. It also only lasts a year.

Just remember chaps there has been this thing called "Officer Discretion " this has been around from year dot!
If the Police issue a parking ticket, speeding ticket or even a £80 disorder ticket. you are acting as a Judge... remember if you not happy just object and go to court, you can do this with a S59. I have known it happen once... and they lost so it stuck.

[drmike]

That is the frirst time I have ever heard of any option to go to court on a Section 59. I thought once issued that was it and there was no right to trial and no appeal,

I thought the main idea the politicians had with laws like that was to avoid the use of courts with inevitable delays and cost.

Officer discretion is fine right up until they are judge and jury. Fine give me a speeding ticket, I'll go to court if I think it's wrong same with parking. I had the idea confirmed by others that was not an option on Section 59.

Mike

[Boggert]

That is the frirst time I have ever heard of any option to go to court on a Section 59. I thought once issued that was it and there was no right to trial and no appeal,

I thought the main idea the politicians had with laws like that was to avoid the use of courts with inevitable delays and cost.

Officer discretion is fine right up until they are judge and jury. Fine give me a speeding ticket, I'll go to court if I think it's wrong same with parking. I had the idea confirmed by others that was not an option on Section 59.

Mike

There is no option, he took a civil action out against the police to have it removed and lost!
The section 59 is just a written warning...thats all, its having the vehicle seized that costs money.

[Bob696]

The section 59 is just a written warning...thats all, its having the vehicle seized that costs money.

and the car is siezed on the second warning?

So it is possable to buy a car, look at a policeman (not every policeman by anymeans but some) the 'wrong way' and you lose your car (if there is a s59 already on it).

So you can lose your car for 2 'offences' that were not deemed by the police to warrent more serious court action that would have resulted in a few points and a fine. To me this reads as if the police now have more power to punish people than the courts do in some cases.

This country really has gone to pot. I also think it is very sad that people think circumventing the courts is such a wonderfull system. It's very 'african'.

LSP. It has already been used against some members of the TRF.

[drmike]

So there is no appeal for Section 59, there is no right to go to court as I thought.

It cannot be right that police officers should have to make decisions that could take someone's ability to work away without that person being able to challenge it. That is not justice and we have only ourselves to blame for allowing lazy politicians to enact laws that do this.

This is indeed the sort of thing that makes one feel this country is going to pot. I never thought I'd feel that way but law like this lacks justice and I have always felt that Britain did justice quite well.

Mike

[Boggert]

Ok Ok Let me make this clear to everyone here, I don't go slapping this on everyone I speak to. As for "looking at a Police officer wrong..." lets get real it not used for that, it for manner of driving and that is why I have used it in the past.

Now if you are worried about the S59 being issued while you are laning.. print a copy off the net and carry it with you. However if you are doing something wrong like driving on a bridleway, expect to get one if you are doing something wrong.

Remember chaps I don't always agree with the law, I don't make the laws. Luckily I have never used a S59 on a 4x4 driver or motocross driver because they are sensible enough to not drive on bridleways, footpaths or in a manner likely to cause distress alarm and annoyance.
If I’m given a tool that I can use to slow down people who drive or act like idiots, with out sticking points on their licence then I'll use it.

You may not like the s59 but the locals in our town love it, because with out it and the threat of it, the local boy racers would still be screaming around the car parks late at night doing burn outs and doughnuts. They would still be using the road in to town as a drag strip and making peoples lives a total misery. So in my eyes for all law abiding car drivers it makes the roads safer.

[drmike]

I am quite sure that almost no police officers use it as a sort of 'personal punishment' and I'm all for having trust in the discretion of officers to judge what a suitable approach to each individual case should be. When you get mechanistic law without this discretion then you get the erosion of respect for the law.

However, making the police officers the final arbiter is not justice. You or the state feel I have committed a crime I do not. In the case of Section 59 I have nowhere to put my case. That's not justice.

There are no other laws that prevent boy racers driving irresponsibly - come on that cannot be the case. The truth is the politicians wanted a quick fix to apply when an obvious breach of the law was committed as in the cases you cite that would hurt those doing it. Section 59 is very effective but it's not justice.

Then we have 'So in my eyes for all law abiding car drivers it makes the roads safer.' The same old argument, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear. Yes you do when one officer can make a genuine mistake, misinterperting the situation and you have nowhere to argue your case.

Plain and simple it's (IMHO) lazy law enacted by lazy politicians as a populist quick fix and isn't fair on the police that have to apply it and seriously erodes justice in this country.

Goodenss I truly am a pompous ass!

Mike

[Boggert]

I am quite sure that almost no police officers use it as a sort of 'personal punishment' and I'm all for having trust in the discretion of officers to judge what a suitable approach to each individual case should be. When you get mechanistic law without this discretion then you get the erosion of respect for the law.

However, making the police officers the final arbiter is not justice. You or the state feel I have committed a crime I do not. In the case of Section 59 I have nowhere to put my case. That's not justice.

There are no other laws that prevent boy racers driving irresponsibly - come on that cannot be the case. The truth is the politicians wanted a quick fix to apply when an obvious breach of the law was committed as in the cases you cite that would hurt those doing it. Section 59 is very effective but it's not justice.

Then we have 'So in my eyes for all law abiding car drivers it makes the roads safer.' The same old argument, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear. Yes you do when one officer can make a genuine mistake, misinterperting the situation and you have nowhere to argue your case.

Plain and simple it's (IMHO) lazy law enacted by lazy politicians as a populist quick fix and isn't fair on the police that have to apply it and seriously erodes justice in this country.

Goodenss I truly am a pompous ass!

Mike

There are no problems in trying to slow the boyracers down, it just on private property like car parks you have no authority. The 59 comes in handy and is used in conjunction with the Anti social behaviour laws.

Agreed it is a quick fix for a situation, but if you lived next to the car park and they were keeping you kids awake playing music, doing burnouts and doughnuts you would want that.

Now as I said I don't make the laws, however like a plumber if I have a tool in my tool box that can help sort a problem quickly and affectively I will use it.  

[drmike]

I totally agree you don't make the laws and you'd be irresponsible not to use an effective tool that the law makers have given you.

Still doesn't make it a good law or justice!

Mike

[Lyndsey731]

Boggert

Just a quick (and daft) question but it's always been sat in the back of my mind.

Section 163 of The Road Traffic Act states that you can be arrested for failing to STOP when requested by an officer in uniform to do so.

Is there a law that states that you have to stay there?

One of the definitions of stop in the dictionary is (funnily enough) to cease movement

For example you are in uniform, on foot and request me to stop, which I duly do so, I then drive off before you have chance to walk round to the drivers side of the vehicle, so effectively I have complied with letter of the law and ceased movement, what law have I broken by driving off.

Before you get too concerned, I'm in my mid thirtys with three children, don't go tearing up the streets and am pretty sure the boss wouldn't want a bad boys exhaust and spoiler bolted to the back of my company car, Just as I said a daft question that I have always wondered about.

Thanks

Gav

[Boggert]

Boggert

Just a quick (and daft) question but it's always been sat in the back of my mind.

Section 163 of The Road Traffic Act states that you can be arrested for failing to STOP when requested by an officer in uniform to do so.

Is there a law that states that you have to stay there?

One of the definitions of stop in the dictionary is (funnily enough) to cease movement

For example you are in uniform, on foot and request me to stop, which I duly do so, I then drive off before you have chance to walk round to the drivers side of the vehicle, so effectively I have complied with letter of the law and ceased movement, what law have I broken by driving off.

Before you get too concerned, I'm in my mid thirtys with three children, don't go tearing up the streets and am pretty sure the boss wouldn't want a bad boys exhaust and spoiler bolted to the back of my company car, Just as I said a daft question that I have always wondered about.

Thanks

Gav

Not a silly question at all, I've never thought about it that way! I think That would be classed as a fail to stop. However the only to test it would be in court.
On foot I would turn around and signal you to stop again and continue to do so until A) we both got bored of the game B) you drove off and failed to stop C) I was sitting on you bonnet :lol:
Most of the laws we deal with on a regular basis are open to interpretation one way or another and can only be tested in court. Which is why we have courts.

When it comes to Policing, its a job, when I go home at the end of the day I want to forget about work like anyone else. I've only been in the job 3 years and have to seek advice on these things all the time, If I didn't I would be failing the public in my role. There is so many laws and definitions of offences you have to ask questions.
I take no pleasure in messing up peoples lives and accept we all cock up from time to time, we are human, all of us.

[Highlander1]

I find the use of a section 59 in this very dubious.

As was said doing him for failing to stop was "a bit iffy" so a section 59 was issued. In what manner did he cause distress to the public? It was said that everyone had a good laugh at his expense, how does this constitute 'distress'?

It does seem to me that section 59's are being used for "annoying a police officer who can't actual get a prosecution because you haven't actually done anything that is illegal"
Whilst I think that a catchall antisocial behaviour charge is a good idea I cant help but feel that leaving it completely in the hands of individuals is a very bad step.

Very worrying.

 Quote: /  I see where you are coming from, however he had failed to stop at a closed road, which had been closed by the highways dept at the request of the Police, so that is a case of Fail to Stop. The reason a 59 was issued was because I was annoyed at his reckless action.

 
Boggart

You still haven't answered the question.  Was the sign a rectangular road closed sign? It isn't mandatory to comply with them regardless of who ordered them to be placed police or otherwise.

Only the round are mandatory.

If lives were at risk why not section 2 for manner of driving.

The way it reads he got a ticket cos he pi**ed you off personally which isn't the object of the exercise impartiality and all that.


Each to their own. I think that the way the Police are portrayed towards the public is more important than seeming to show off.

That's just the way the thread appears to me and it's not a dig or criticism. Just my personal opinion. On this particular issue.

I'm sure you do a fine job and all credit for those times when your out there saving lives.

If it was a case of recklessness then I'm sure every one of the poor souls including the AA truck driver on the news would be issued with a section 59 for causing themselves to be rescued from the floods. :!:    :?

[Lyndsey731]

Boggert

I used the on foot bit as I thought that once I'd driven off you couldn't get me again where as in a car you could, as for trying it out I don't think I've got the dangly bits to try it myself, but as a great deal of my job is interpretation of documents and arguing the point to the letter of those documents I think it would be fun to try, unfortunately my knowledge of the law is shall we say poor and knowing my luck I'd get the judge without a sense of humour.

Thanks for the response, any other of you coppers come across this?

Gav

[Keri]

Bloody hell this thread is getting long and complicated for something so simple :?

[Boggert]

Ok.... Just to Answer all your questions FINALLY...


Section 59...


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).
 
As for the Road Closure signs... not a clue and I have never heard that before. There were The Blue Police stop signs out, that I had put up as well as The Highway Closure signs... Yellow and red ones.

The end issue is he learned a lesson, He and His dad was very happy with the Police's actions and he may slow down.

I don't have to justify my actions with anyone on here even thoe I have already done this... if you don't agree with my actions, thats fine. My sergent agreed with them and so did the lad and his family, and thats the end of it.

Gav,

I'll speak to my mate who is a traffice officer and see what he has to say. Interesting to see what he has to say.

[drmike]

Not so very simple. A young and apparently foolish man who possibly had no idea how to handle a flooded road made a poor call and now has a Section 59 hanging over him against which he has no appeal.

The way the tale was told it sounded like Section 59 was used as they couldn't get a failing to stop to stick - I don't think that was what was meant or was in fact the case but it's the way it could be read.

So, no it's not simple and it's not justice although it is legal.

Mike

[Boggert]

Not so very simple. A young and apparently foolish man who possibly had no idea how to handle a flooded road made a poor call and now has a Section 59 hanging over him against which he has no appeal.

The way the tale was told it sounded like Section 59 was used as they couldn't get a failing to stop to stick - I don't think that was what was meant or was in fact the case but it's the way it could be read.

So, no it's not simple and it's not justice although it is legal.

Mike

Well we will just have to agree to differ...

[Lyndsey731]

Highlander

I can see where your coming from as Boggert did say that his driving bugged him which might not have been the best choice of phrase, but he also states that the vehicle was driving at speed, though admittedly doesn't say he was speeding, was on the wrong side of the road, on a bend, in poor weather conditions, with road closed signs and two uniformed coppers surley these idiots need a warning of some sort. OK point taken that this might not be fair as there is no right of appeal and I can't argue with that but as stated you can only use the tools that you have.
As for the signs if the highways were placing them would that not mean that a temporary TRO was in place, if so as long as the signs comply with the traffic signs regs would that not make them mandatory? thats a genuine question not a sarky comment honestly! it's amazing how we take things the wrong way on this forum.

Thanks

Gav

[drmike]

Quite and there is nothing personal in my comments and I agree with you regarding the application od Section 59 - you'd be wrong not to use it where your judgement indicates it's appropriate. As you said it's there in the toolbox for you to use in the relevant circumstances.

Still a crap law though  :D

Mike

[Wolfie]

There again, you could take the view that he got off lightly. As s59 can only be used if specific offences have been committed, it is up to the police officer to decide whether to report the underlying offence or to issue a warning notice.

As to what happens if a second warning is issued and a vehicle is siezed, does anyone have a link to the regulations that the SoS has made as mentioned in s60

PRA 2002 is at  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20030--f.htm#60

If the warning has the desired effect on this particular driver (and possibly his mates when news of his warning circulates) and a more serious incident is avoided surely that is a good thing.

[Frankie-Boy]

Ok,

I believe this thread has now run its course, those who had an interest have said their piece and before this goes into a heated affray, I feel it best to lock the thread.

I for one appreciate what police officers do and to go any further with this discussion would not be fair to our serving officer members.

What is done is done and we should leave it there.