Got Pulled Over :/

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by Seandesy1

A Section 59 doesn't have to be processed. The verbal warning is given, a report/marker is added to PNC and the next time the vehicle/driver is seen acting in an anti-social manner say goodbye to your mode of transport. No court attendance is required for S.59 unless there are further offences.

This may seem what happens in practice but it's not technically correct. There still has to be reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has taken place before an officer can issue a Sect. 59 warning and they are required to record these grounds. If you think you have been given one when you should not have you can appeal to the issuing force, have the grounds examined, and quite rightly have it removed if it is not substantiated.

Originally Posted by inferno.reaper

Anyway the officer left saying that as he was local he'd keep an eye out for my bike and any time he'd have to stop me again, he'd send me a court notice with no chance for a on the spot fine etc...

Sounds like a prime c0ckmuncher on a power trip - ignore him and enjoy yourself

Originally Posted by Luckypants

But he could issue a Section 59 'vehicle ASBO' just on his own say so, so you have to be careful dealing with jumped up coppers throwing their weight around like this.*

You do not have to accept a Section 59 from a police officer. You can always respond with

"I do not accept the Section 59 notice you are trying to impose on me. If I have committed an offence then I want you to report me for it through the proper channels and then we will see what comes of the prosecution in court"

Any copper resorting to a Section 59 is immediately on a loser because he's trying to frighten you into doing something with absolutely no evidence to back him up, just the powers that a Section 59 gives him.

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by Lozzo

You do not have to accept a Section 59 from a police officer. You can always respond with

"I do not accept the Section 59 notice you are trying to impose on me. If I have committed an offence then I want you to report me for it through the proper channels and then we will see what comes of the prosecution in court"

Any copper resorting to a Section 59 is immediately on a loser because he's trying to frighten you into doing something with absolutely no evidence to back him up, just the powers that a Section 59 gives him.

Sorry Lozzo, not so. We could derail this thread with a discussion on Sect 59 but I'm sure we've done it somewhere before haven't we?

I'm pretty sure the gist of other discussions was that if an officer tries to slap a Sect 59 on you then you have the choice of that or stand prosecution for the offence. Personally, if that's the case I'd rather waste his time in court, hopefully on a rest day, and see how he likes that.

I better keep my eyes extra peeled then!

We may have a possible priceless moment if this guy sees me giving it some beans and then thinks it's you...

Originally Posted by Lozzo

I'm pretty sure the gist of other discussions was that if an officer tries to slap a Sect 59 on you then you have the choice of that or stand prosecution for the offence. Personally, if that's the case I'd rather waste his time in court, hopefully on a rest day, and see how he likes that.

If it's anything like the ASB order (same as Sec 59 but can't remeber the exact legislation section...) we have here, then no, you would get the Sec 59 AND reported....

[Red Herring]

Sect 59 is not an alternative to prosecution, it is a preventative power given to the police to stop an offence continuing. On the first instance the officer may well use his discretion and not report you for the offence, but still issue a warning (Sect 59), on the second offence they are then able to evoke Sect 59 and seize the vehicle, and almost certainly prosecute you for the offence that led to it. The significant point here is that there has to be a first offence for them to issue the warning, and this is what you can challenge. If the officer cannot show there was an offence (and incidentally that it also caused alarm, harrassment, distress to another) then they cannot issue a Sect 59 warning and it should be withdrawn.

[rowdy]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

Sect 59 is not an alternative to prosecution, it is a preventative power given to the police to stop an offence continuing. On the first instance the officer may well use his discretion and not report you for the offence, but still issue a warning (Sect 59), on the second offence they are then able to evoke Sect 59 and seize the vehicle, and almost certainly prosecute you for the offence that led to it. The significant point here is that there has to be a first offence for them to issue the warning, and this is what you can challenge. If the officer cannot show there was an offence (and incidentally that it also caused alarm, harrassment, distress to another) then they cannot issue a Sect 59 warning and it should be withdrawn.

So do we not have grounds to argue if a copper turns up on the doorway giving us a warning of supposed erratic driving?
Reason I ask is because I have had said warning before for overtaking a car that was being driven in an erratic manner and wanted to get out of his vicinity.

Now, every time I overtake a vehicle I am worried that some numpty is going to complain about it. For example the other day I was following a badly driven 4x4 in the overtaking lane of dual carraigeway for a couple of miles and it wasn't overtaking anything. Next junction I came to I was turning right so just sat behind waiting for the junction. At the junction (traffic lights) the 4x4 was turning right as well. Lights change and the lady driving is too busy chatting to her friend so doesn't go when the lights change for a few seconds. No bother I think to myself, its single carriageway and she can't sit on the other side of the road blocking me so I will overtake, which is what I duely do. 4x4 driver takes umbridge to the fact that I have (quite legally) overtaken her and gives me some full beam. The next car I come across is travelling 20mph below the speed limit so I perform another safe overtake and settle at the speed limit. A couple of miles down the road and I enter a 30 limit, look in the mirror and the nearest car behind is at least 500 yards behind. after another 500 yards the 4x4 is right up my ****, so has obviously gone through the 30 limit at around 60 or so to catch me up. 4x4 then attempts to follow me home (but being a wobbly 4x4 can't keep up around the national speed limited country road toward my house).

Anywho, sorry for the derail, but I am now expecting a police officer to come round my house with another section 59 and it would all be on the say so of someone that had commited an actual traffic violation, whereas I hadn't.

[mister c]

Lesson learnt, get on with it.