There is a wee thing on the Mustang forum about an owner who was pulled over and issued with a Section 59, to wit:-
The Legislation:
Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002 states that -
Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which contravenes Road Traffic Act Section 3 (Careless Driving) OR Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road) AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public, Section 59 can be used to:-
initially give a written warning (valid for twelve months)
(commonly called a Section 59 Notice)
and on a subsequent occasion to seize the vehicle.
(it will probably end up in the crusher, or may be ransomed back to the owner)
A constable in uniform has the power to order the person driving to stop the vehicle, to seize and remove the vehicle, to enter any premises on which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be and to use reasonable force. Seizure can made only if a warning has been given, or believed to have been given, or if a warning is clearly being ignored.
Now, is it just me or are there a huge bunch of catchalls in there ?
Specifically:-
"AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public"
If I read it correctly, you could be parked by the side of the road and a policeman stops and says, hmm, that looks like a noisy car and, in my opinion 'is likely to cause alarm, distress and annoyance' to anyone, so here is your Section 59 notice. If I issue another one in a 12 month period, we will confiscate your car.
"to enter any premises on which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be"
I think that car in your garage is 'likely to cause alarm, distress and annoyance' so here is your Section 59 notice. If I pass by and ask to see in your garage and think that your car is still 'likely to cause alarm, distress and annoyance' then I will have it crushed.
Or:-
"if a warning has been given, or believed to have been given"
Last night, while I was in bed I believe I gave you a warning about this car. You ignored my 'believed' warning (although I was nowhere near you, or your car and, indeed, you were nowhere near your car either) so I am confiscating your car for crushing.
Seems a strange law.
Perhaps MattH could clarify.
Section 59
Moderator: Moderators
As Hugh has intimated, the circumstances of the "nick" would be interesting, though I can't believe the wording of this particular law (not counting the obvious error) because as you say, it opens a whole can of worms.
Like the issuing of prohibition notices for fenderless cars and any other "heavy" traffic law, generally I think you have to be driving a death trap or be driving like a complete nob to attract one...
Like the issuing of prohibition notices for fenderless cars and any other "heavy" traffic law, generally I think you have to be driving a death trap or be driving like a complete nob to attract one...
.