SV650.org - SV650 & Gladius 650 Forum



SV Talk, Tuning & Tweaking Discussion and chat on all topics and technical stuff related to the SV650 and SV1000
Need Help: Try Searching before posting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 26-04-10, 09:06 PM   #291
Messie
The Teacer
Mega Poster
 
Messie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: colchester
Posts: 2,739
Default Re: "33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

Nor has he come back to tell us what happened today!
Messie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-10, 09:08 PM   #292
Fishtits
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

Quote:
Originally Posted by yorkie_chris View Post
"Reasonable grounds"? You can't be serious that a hunch constitutes reasonable?
You don't know that the only grounds for it was a hunch. If the Officer is of the opinion that a plate is required on restricted bikes - and this bike hasn't got one - then he will believe the bike is unrestricted. It's about what exists in the mind of the Officer seizing it at the time, not about what is factually correct.

If that Officer has been told by a superior, who has in turn been told by a vehicle examiner (who is effectively an expert) then can't you see why he will think the bike is unrestricted...? Yeah he might be wrong, but he doesn't know he's wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-10, 09:09 PM   #293
tommo891
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtits View Post
Constable in uniform - yes (I assume they were in uniform?)

has reasonable grounds to believe the rider is driving other than in accordance with a license - yes (it is for a Court to decide if the Officer's grounds are reasonable but it is assumed the Officer rightly or wrongly believes the bike to be unrestricted)

and has requested to see both the DL and counterpart entitling the rider to ride that vehicle and a suitable license has not been produced - yes (the Officer believes the bike to be unrestricted, therefore the rider must produce a valid license for an unrestricted bike)

then the Officer can seize the vehicle under s165 of the RTA '88.

Thats all the law says.... It doesn't say the Police have to prove it's unrestricted prior to seizure, the Officer just has to believe it's unrestricted.
But if you can think like us for a moment surely you can understand why not only the OP but the rest of the .org feel some what the same, it does sound unfair and by all accounts the officers doesnt sound like a very nice bloke..but I bet the copper who seized his bike was a NIB

Last edited by tommo891; 26-04-10 at 09:19 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-10, 09:09 PM   #294
Biker Biggles
Member
Mega Poster
 
Biker Biggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Barnet Herts
Posts: 5,071
Default Re: "33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

OP has gone very quiet.I reckon the police have been forced to have him silenced to stop us finding out about their outrageous behavior.My vote is he is already fdorming part of the foundations of the new Central England Police HQ.
__________________
On a clear day we stand there and look further than the ordinary eye can see.
Biker Biggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-10, 09:10 PM   #295
Lozzo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtits View Post
Ok, which aspect of the legislation on vehicle seizure for driving other than in accordance hasn't been complied with?
Failing to give a receipt for the vehicle, failing to determine whether or not a certificate or plate was a legal requirement by simply reading the statute books (I have read certain ones in order to keep within the law regarding personal reg marks and spacing, so I know they exist), failing to inform the OP of their names/numbers, failing to acknowledge the basic tenet of "innocent until proven guilty", failing to have any understanding of the law they were intending to prosecute the OP for allegedly breaking... shall I carry on for you?

In short the coppers have screwed up in a number of ways and the OP is the one suffering unnecessarily. I know that not all coppers are like this and the vast majority of the police's good work goes unreported, unthanked and unheard of, but when things like this happen it really does make me wonder what sort of feckwits certain forces employ as their 'customer facing first line' and why stricter selection isn't involved at the very beginning of their career.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-10, 09:22 PM   #296
Fishtits
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo891 View Post
But if you can think like us for a moment surely you can understand why not only the OP but the rest of the .org feel some what the same, it does sound fair and by all accounts the officers doesnt sound like a very nice bloke..but I bet the copper who seized his bike was a NIB
Mate I completely see where you're coming from, and can 100% see why it would seem draconian and OTT and unnecessary, doing nothing but more damage to the already-crap reputation we have in the community at the moment.

Look I don't mean to argue with people on here, and I appreciate i'm new to this forum. I've tried to explain possible reasons behind the decision based on what seems to me to be some dodgy info from the OP at best. I've tried to explain as basically as I can what is essentially a grey-area in law and tried to explain the reasons why - despite the actions seeming harsh - they appear to be lawful. I've tried to rise above and ignore the anti-Police sentiments and keep my posts fair and balanced, but obviously they aren't coming across that way.

Quote:
Failing to give a receipt for the vehicle
As has been discussed I think that no receipt was issued to prevent the OP claiming the bike back prior to testing. The law doesn't state a receipt needs to be given, it's best practise though and it's whats required to claim the vehicle back.

Quote:
failing to determine whether or not a certificate or plate was a legal requirement by simply reading the statute books
The Officer asked a Sgt who in turn asked a vehicle examiner who told them a plate was required. That sounds like reasonable attempts to me to find out. Believe it or not we don't carry every legal text in the back of our cars, we wouldn't have room for the paperwork otherwise. Just look at the posts here, even some posters were divided on whether a plate is required, with some stating they've had bikes with them on, others stating they've never heard of them.

Quote:
failing to inform the OP of their names/numbers
Again - Poor 'customer service' for want of a better word, but not enough to negate the actions taken. The OP only had to ask if he wanted them, and he didn't state he asked and they refused. I've certainly been to jobs and forgotten to introduce myself, i've had people demand my number. It's written on my shoulders for all to see and note down.

Quote:
failing to acknowledge the basic tenet of "innocent until proven guilty"
And if you read the thread you'd see it isn't a case of "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof is on the rider to prove he has a license, not on the Police to prove he doesn't. So actually, you're "guilty until proven innocent". If you require proof of that, Google the case of "DPP v Hay".

Quote:
failing to have any understanding of the law they were intending to prosecute the OP for allegedly breaking
Again, they believe bike to be unrestricted. Rider cannot produce license for an unrestricted bike. Therefore bike seized. As I said, it's not about whats factually correct (i.e. whether the bike is restricted or not), it's about what the Officer believes to be the case.

Quote:
shall I carry on for you?
Please do.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-10, 09:26 PM   #297
yorkie_chris
Noisy Git
Mega Poster
 
yorkie_chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax/Leeds
Posts: 26,645
Default Re: "33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtits View Post
Look I don't mean to argue with people on here, and I appreciate i'm new to this forum. I've tried to explain possible reasons behind the decision based on what seems to me to be some dodgy info from the OP at best. I've tried to explain as basically as I can what is essentially a grey-area in law and tried to explain the reasons why - despite the actions seeming harsh - they appear to be lawful. I've tried to rise above and ignore the anti-Police sentiments and keep my posts fair and balanced, but obviously they aren't coming across that way.
Hell, argue away. You'll get more respect from me telling it how it is than you will pandering to people. Word of advise though, people seeming mad is more them saying "the law is an ass" than having a go at you personally.
__________________
Currently Ex Biker
Now rebuilding a 63' fishing trawler as a dive boat
yorkie_chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-10, 09:27 PM   #298
tommo891
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

Fishtits sightly off the subject but if you want to know a police officers badge number and they refuse, is there anything I could do....and I mean he puts his hand over his shoulder and says go away...
  Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-10, 09:28 PM   #299
Red Herring
Member
Mega Poster
 
Red Herring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: "33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

That's quite a read that is, and it seems most things have been said.
I think there are two different issues here, the first thing being can the police do what they did, the second being should they have done it.

With regard to the first it rather depends on what legislation they elected to use. Certain police officers (read "most") are authorized to test and inspect vehicles on a road but this power only extends to test certain things. The power produced by the engine isn't one of them so if they did use this legislation (Sect 67 RTA) they might be on a sticky wicket, especially as they don't have a power to seize it to examine it.

If on the other hand they have reasonable grounds to suspect the OP has committed an offence (for example he's driving other than in accordance with a driving licence) they could have used their powers under PACE (The Police and Criminal Evidence Act) to seize anything that is evidence of that offence. The main problem here is that they will need to show that they had a reasonable suspicion before they seized the bike, they can't seize it, examine it, and then form their suspicion from the examination. Incidentally if you do seize a vehicle under PACE then there is no requirement to issue a receipt or other paperwork.

There has been some mention of the powers under Sect.165 (the no insurance/driving licence legislation). Here there is a requirement for the officer to have a belief rather than a reasonable suspicion of the offence so it is actually a higher expectation, and if the officer believes he is committing the offence what evidence is that belief based on?
Sect165 also requires the officer to serve the form, he can't with-hold it to prevent the vehicle being reclaimed, they have no power to retain the vehicle.

Incidentally the Op mentions the officers were in an unmarked car. Were they in uniform? Powers to stop vehicles and to test inspect them on a road are restricted to officers in uniform...

On the second point should the officers have done what they did even if they did have the authority to do so, well that would very much depend on the circumstance. I've got a fair bit of experience in this area and I've never known a bike to be seized for a power check, unless it had been involved in a serious crash. As some have alluded to I suspect there may be a bit more to this story than has been disclosed.
Red Herring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-10, 09:29 PM   #300
Lozzo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtits View Post

Thats all the law says.... It doesn't say the Police have to prove it's unrestricted prior to seizure, the Officer just has to believe it's unrestricted.
I do not see how any officer with half a working brain cell can honestly believe a motorcycle is unrestricted when he has observed it being ridden carefully in a 30mph limit within the law.

If he had just chased or followed the bike at speeds in excess of 100mph then I could understand it, or if he'd seen the bike performing things like wheelies or rolling burnouts at 50 or 60 mph then again I could believe it, but to seize a bike he's only seen being ridden at sub 30mph speeds is ridiculous and highly suspect.

In my opinion the copper who seized the bike believes in only one thing, and that's in his own importance.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
eye ball yellow "n" and a blue "s" curvey!!! cymroboi The Border Patrol 5 19-06-09 08:09 PM
Using "Pointy" Tensioners in a "Curvy"? dtr125 SV Talk, Tuning & Tweaking 25 05-02-09 05:42 PM
teh "what you doing this weekend thread"...sponsored by Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger the Third keithd Idle Banter 30 18-01-09 11:47 AM
that childish "but i dont want to go feeling" 454697819 Idle Banter 11 06-01-08 10:07 PM
Rideout "Sections" or "Groups" independentphoto Bikes - Talk & Issues 19 04-09-07 01:08 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.