Section 59 is an extremely poor piece of legislation that requires no proof of guilt, in effect you are guilty until proven innocent and even if you are proven innocent you will struggle to get the section 59 removed.
What nobody has asked yet that I find strange is that why was section 59 used at all? Surely if the lad in the OP "sped" away from the Police then the correct route would have been to charge him with speeding. Did the lad not actually exceed the posted limit so in all actuality the only thing he is guilty of was accelerating faster than the police officer could keep up?
Section 59 should not be used in many cases where it currently is since there is already sufficient legislation in place to cover every offence, the only difference is that these require a level of proof that is a dream for anyone charged under section 59.