section 59 - outrageous highway robbery?

Takoda

Inactive wrote: »

Unfortunately it is the " boy racers " that are no doubt in question here.

I very much doubt that any normal law abiding driver has ever been issued with one of these.

Agree totally.

Drive like a muppet and you lose your car. :rotfl:

The key here is that it was his SECOND offence.

Nuff said.

If he's smart he'll learn from it. If he isn't then he deserves all he gets.

goldspanners

matt1987 wrote: »

Hmm... dont exactly know where your going with the tom !!!!!! and harry comment? But I am assuming its a dig at my job?

matt1987 wrote: »

It is covered in our 6 weeks training at HQ. There was even a final assessment role play on it, because as a lot of people have said on here, it is a fairly big power to have.

no,all im saying is that in 6 weeks time anyone could be able to that. thats not a lot of training or experience to hand out such potentially life changing set of circumstances based on no evidence.

maninthestreet

We are digressing here. You are all missing the point - Section 59 is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is enshrined into British Law by the Human Rights Act of 1998. The police have a statutory duty to uphold the Human Rights Act. Hopefully, it is only a matter of time before Section 59 is successfully challenged in the courts, in much the same way the seizure of a suspected terrorist's assets has been successfully challenged.

liam8282

maninthestreet wrote: »

We are digressing here. You are all missing the point - Section 59 is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is enshrined into British Law by the Human Rights Act of 1998. The police have a statutory duty to uphold the Human Rights Act. Hopefully, it is only a matter of time before Section 59 is successfully challenged in the courts, in much the same way the seizure of a suspected terrorist's assets has been successfully challenged.

The same could be said for every other on the spot penalty that the police can issue.

We all want police out on the streets doing their job, so the S59 appears to be designed to speed up the whole process of punishing drivers who have committed offences that would normally be dealt with under the RTA.

The person receiving the S59 always have the right to appeal and it could be challenged in the courts, but there must be an element of acceptance that the drivers have actually committed an offence if nobody has actually challenged a S59 in court as yet.

It does seem harsh, but personally I would rather have the bad drivers off the road.

liam8282

liam8282

^ another 1.3 road car.

cajef

maninthestreet wrote: »

We are digressing here. You are all missing the point - Section 59 is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights

No one is missing the point or digressing, the point you seem to be missing is that if it is what it takes to stop these idiots and morons from killing and maiming innocent people then so be it, you want to try attending and picking the pieces up after a few RTA's then you may change your opinions.

maninthestreet

liam8282 wrote: »

The same could be said for every other on the spot penalty that the police can issue.

We all want police out on the streets doing their job, so the S59 appears to be designed to speed up the whole process of punishing drivers who have committed offences that would normally be dealt with under the RTA.

The person receiving the S59 always have the right to appeal and it could be challenged in the courts, but there must be an element of acceptance that the drivers have actually committed an offence if nobody has actually challenged a S59 in court as yet.

It does seem harsh, but personally I would rather have the bad drivers off the road.

There is no right of appeal to a court for a S59 seizure, which is not the case for PCNs issued by the police - you can refuse to pay a PCN and have your case heard in court. You also do not have to have committed any offence for a S59 seizure to take place. Just because nobody has yet challenged any S59 seizure does not justify their use or even existance of this power of seizure - it's assumption of guilt and punishment without fair trial or right of appeal to a court. The end result cannot be used to justify the means. It's summary justice, and summary justice = no justice.

liam8282

^ Somebody has already posted earlier in the thread that you can appeal against a S59.

Maybe not at the time when your car is getting seized, but you can still appeal against it.

Paradigm

maninthestreet is right on the money!

There is no real appeal route for a S59, from what I can see the only recourse is a letter to the Cheif Constable asking for it to be reviewed/revoked. I can't see any avenues for a court appeal?

A Judicial review is an option but at considerable cost which is out of range for most of the motoring public.

Originally S59 was introduced to combat quads, off road motorbikes etc being thrashed round estates & the like... nothing wrong with that!

However, much like the mobile phone law, it is now being abused.

Taken from a recent case on pepipoo.....



So, "causing your wheels to screech" is enough to get you a S59 :eek: although no laws have been broken?

The officer in this case stated "he believed the car was being driven in a careless manner"... if he did think that then there are already sufficient laws for the driver to be prosecuted. Of course this would then need evidence