section 59 - outrageous highway robbery?

liam8282

maninthestreet wrote: »

There you go again, PRESUMPTION OF GUILT!

Not at all, if you read my previous posts I have never presumed that any of the people with the S59 are guilty.

If they have done nothing wrong, there is an appeal process. If they choose not to follow it or don't like it, sorry but nothing I can do about that.

maninthestreet

liam8282 wrote: »

Not at all, if you read my previous posts I have never presumed that any of the people with the S59 are guilty.

If they have done nothing wrong, there is an appeal process. If they choose not to follow it or don't like it, sorry but nothing I can do about that.

There is NO appeal process in law for a S59 warning or seizure.

Phlik

I agree with Maninthestreet. The section 59 offence is a good idea in principle, but it has been badly implemented, allowing it to be misused (whether it is being misused or not is another matter entirely).

S59 is a very powerful tool, as has already been stated. It allows the officer to act at his sole discretion and become judge, jury and executioner with no path for appeal for the accused. i can think of no other offence where this is the case, so to also give this tool to a PCSO is utterly ridiculous. The biggest issue is that it can be used as a catch all.

Section 3. If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

This could pretty much cover anything if the officer so wished, and as the accused has no right of appeal there is no way to defend against it. This could lead to some very lazy policing, S59 for sneezing anyone?.

I'm sure the majority are justified, but that isn't good enough, it should be beyond reproach.

Phlik

almillar

This guy's been pulled over for having a loud exhaust twice, and had to pay £150 to get his car back. I think there's a limit on noise is there not?
If I were him, I'd get rid of the Nova of course, or get rid of the exhaust, but there's no way that you can be done for speeding going by the sound you're making!
Appeal it!

liam8282

maninthestreet wrote: »

There is NO appeal process in law for a S59 warning or seizure.

You can appeal to the officer in charge at the issuing police station, if that fails and you still believe you have done nothing wrong you could take your complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The thing is, if you are driving as in the letter that was previously posted, you have committed an offence so what basis do you have to complain or appeal against it in the first place?

Phlik

almillar wrote: »

This guy's been pulled over for having a loud exhaust twice, and had to pay £150 to get his car back. I think there's a limit on noise is there not?
If I were him, I'd get rid of the Nova of course, or get rid of the exhaust, but there's no way that you can be done for speeding going by the sound you're making!
Appeal it!

That's the problem though, you can't unless you have very deep pockets.

Losing the loud exhaust is good advice though, don't bring needless attention to yourself.

Phlik

liam8282

Officer_Dibble wrote: »

A section 59 doesn't get you off, you can still be prosecuted under the RTA.

But surely the S59 is a lesser offence than being prosecuted under the RTA, so if these drivers have committed an offence, they should really be happy that they have only been issued with the S59.

If they were prosecuted under the RTA, they would ultimately run the risk of getting a fine, a driving ban, points on licence, if a young driver having to retake their test......

As I have said the S59 does seem harsh, but not so bad when you think about it.

liam8282

Phlik wrote: »

That's the problem though, you can't unless you have very deep pockets.

Losing the loud exhaust is good advice though, don't bring needless attention to yourself.

Phlik

IPCC is free, so no excuses really.

Phlik

liam8282 wrote: »

IPCC is free, so no excuses really.

IPCC isn't the correct way it should be delt with either. I would use that if I had a problem with an individual officers conduct. i.e. if the officer was physically or verbally abusive or blatently dishonest.

For any other offence, such as speeding, drink driving etc you can choose to defend yourself in court if you feel that you are innocent, you cannot do this with a S59.

Phlik

liam8282

^ I think that is the whole idea of the S59 though, to stop these petty driving offences getting to court and clogging up the system.

It looks like the majority of people admit that they have committed an offence, but just don't like the punishment.