Section 59
August 2nd, 2009Bob asked for our comment on police use of section 59 of Police Reform Act 2002.
The story goes like this. Last year a mate was riding in North Wales and was stopped for filtering and issued with a Sect 59. I suppose he did not know exactly what this was, and perhaps being threatened with due care and attention he took the warning. He tells me that while slowly passing traffic on offside a van pulled out in front of him and caused him to ride over broken white line into opposite carriageway, he returned to his own side of the road immediately and caused no oncoming vehicle to swerve or alter course. However he was stopped by PC and done.
Last month he was pulled for apparently overtaking a vehicle within the confines of a pedestrian crossing. He was past the crossing at the time and did not believe that this constituted an offence. He was pulled by the police for this offence and having a sect 59 recorded against him he had his bike confiscated for committing a similar offence to the first.
The follow up was that he was informed where the bike was to be held, he made his way there and on paying the fees got his bike back same day.
It looks like rather than try to prove an offence against sect 3 where after reporting the defendant has the recourse to the courts, the police are pursuing this sect 59 where they need no proof and there is no recourse only to another police officer and we know where that would lead. Even ASBO’s need more proof than this.
Our thoughts to Bob’s question.
Section 3 is from the Road traffic Act 1988, and contains the offence of careless, and inconsiderate, driving:
“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 is usually called driving without due care, but do read the offence in full, as it can include driving through a puddle and soaking people in a bus queue.
Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 is quite different as it deals with 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).
(3) Those powers are-
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless-
(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if-
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.
(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.
(9) In this section-
* “driving” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);
* “motor vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and
* “private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.”
Sorry to set it out in full, but this looks like a real issue, so best we understand it.
The purpose of section 59 is not really to deal with a motoring offence, but to deal with a situation where use of the vehicle is “causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.” This is a requirement for the section to come into play. It allows the police to stop cars and bikes firing up and down residential roads, car parks, or off road. This is different to someone driving poorly and breaching section 3 above. The two sections crossover as for section 59 the driving or riding is supposed to contravene section 3, but the additional requirement is the alarm, distress or annoyance bit. That means a circumstance above and beyond the effect of driving “without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road…”
It is a pretty powerful law, particularly if a police force decide to use it aggressively. It is meant to swiftly stop a nasty situation from arising. The officer stops the vehicle, gives a warning, and if you carry on your vehicle is taken away. In your mate’s situation he might have been guilty of a section 3 offence, but we question if section 59 should have come into play. The warning is recorded and is “live” as the section comes into play if the officer knows the vehicle has been used before in a way which steps on the toes of this section. So, although the law was set up to deal with an immediate problem, the fact that an earlier warning has been given means that second time around you might lose your bike until you cough up for the charges in retaining it.
The law is very loosely drafted, and in your mate’s case is being used as a convenient way of managing road behaviour without having to prosecute the offence. Given the choice would your mate rather be prosecuted or be disciplined as if he is a road hooligan. Section 3 carries between 3 and 9 penalty points.
Comments
Post your comment
![[your key]](http://www.yourkey.info/frontend/wordpress/wp-content/themes/frontend/images/header_left.png "Go to the Your Key home page")
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Does the section 59 have to be given to you in writting or is it a verbal thing?
November 4th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
The section of the Act is set out in full above. Although other commentators talk of the need for written warning, the Act just says warning, with no mention of writing. We did find some useful guidance given by the Hertfordshire police which says that any warning should be recorded in writing. That is available by clicking here. The sort of situation the section is intended to deal with does not really allow for the polite exchange of written warnings. The advice to write it down is advice to the police officer, as he may have to use that as evidence that a warning was given. It is a strong piece of law.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
does the vehicle have to be in motion for section 59 to apply?
For example, a parked vehicle sitting on the side of the road and the passenger throwing a snowball from the car?
I dont think it would apply to this example, as section 3 is not contravened at the same time, but i have had conflicting opinions from my colleagues.
January 4th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
The offence relates to the use of the motor vehicle. using it as cover for a snowball fight is not really within section 59. The section is given a very broad reading by the police, and practice differs between forces.
Section 59 has provoked a good deal of interest from YourKey members, so do please share your experiences with us.
YourKey team
February 11th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
if a section 59 is issued to someone can the police them issue you with a different charge.my son was driving his girlfriends car in a carpark and he was told although it was not the public highway it had access to the public and because he is only 16 he does/nt have a licence yet and he was issued with a warning.I the sheet that he was given then he was sent a summons today for to appear in court for driving on the public highway .Are the police allowed to do that?
February 15th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Our guess is that your son is in trouble. There is much confusion between roads, public places, highway, and so on. PC probably thought your boy was driving in an area where a licence was not necessary, but then checked.
Section 59 is really intended to stop vehicles causing a nuisance, but it tends to be used as justification for ticking drivers off.
We think you need to consult a local solicitor with road traffic prosecution experience in the Magistrates Court.
Let us know what happens please.
Yourkey team
March 7th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
My freind was at mine tonight and left for work, about 15 minutes later he phoned me and said can u come to @@@@ and i said why. basically i went to find him thinking he had had an accident as i heard him giving details to someone over the phone. i proceeded to leave the house worried and made my way there apparently i was speeding but i dont know for myself exactly how fast, the police said it was 100mph . I saw a police car near where he said to go but could see him or his car i drove a bit further and saw him at the side of the road but couldnt stop i carried on the road to find somewhere to turn and in the meantime the police car had begun to follow me. for no reason or so i thought. i pulled into a parking space to turn round and the police car followed. then came another police car. they started talking to me but i wanted to go and see my friend. Iin the other car the sergent was in there and basically he said i was driving too fast and was going to issue a section 59 he then left and the opther constable took my details and checked them on the computer and said to wait in the car which i did. he came back after 5 minuted with the section 59 to sign which i did declined but all he said is the sergent will make a decision what he will do but I have no idea what to do. Will this stay on my record for a year still even though I didnt sign it? what will happen in court? will it come off record if im not guilty? would i have been better just signing the 59 and getting the bus for a year at risk of having my car crushed.. many thanks for your help
March 11th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Thanks Marty,
There are very few circumstances which will allow you to justify breaking the speed limit, and your situation does not look like one to us.
The section 59 notice is meant to be a way of giving you a warning, and if you do it again there are consequences. The trouble is the way in which police forces use section 59 varies, and it is often a power directed at bikes.
On what you tell us our guess is you would have been better to take the warning rather than face a speeding prosecution, particularly at very high speed. You may find the speed cannot be proved, so you may hear no more.
Please let us know if you do hear more.
YourKey team
June 4th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
There are pros and cons to section 59. It can be a useful tool if used wisely and properly by the police. However it can apply to almost any deviation of the ‘driving standard’…..putting most of us at risk technically.
Consider this angle……3 lads in car. Passengers throw eggs out of window connecting with a pedestrian. The car is pulled over by police and rightly so. He has a s. 59 warning already. Car is seized despite driver asking his own passengers to stop the egg throwing. Driver has to pay £150 recovery costs and face careless driving rap due to actions of his passengers. As independent witnesses could not identify egg thrower specifically passengers (offenders) walk away scott free? This can not be a proportionate and fair use of the legislation. It has left the driver convinced that the local police are targetting him. I am not against the legislation but certainly concerned about its use and application. The recovery cost is also a punishment for an unproven action.