Mid life crisis Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 A mate of my lads was driving home last night and experianced a car tailgating him, so he speeded, up only to see blues and twos in his mirror. He was pulled over by two officers who were quite rude and disrespecful towards him. They then demanded that he sign a document for a section 59 offence. The police car was unmarked and my lads mate only speeded up as a defensive action. Consequently he now has a section 59 against him for speeding and all the circumstances that go with that for purely trying to get a bit of distance from what he thought was trouble. As a coincidence another friend of my sons was car jacked last night with a meat cleever to his face (causing a deep slicing wound to his face) and he has had to pay the police £150 today to get his car car back!!! as it was recovered after the police found it and did forensics. It seems that things are a little unfair on 20 year old drivers who have saved to make sure their cars are insured and roadworthy and are yet getting the s***ty end of plod for doing the right thing - comments. Attached is downloaded from google, interesting!!!! A N D R E W T H O M P S O N & C O. 4 7 P A R K S Q U A R E L E E D S, L S 1 2 N L www.leeds - solicitors.com Section 59 Police Reform Act Section 59 is the last resort of an officer with no evidence. If they had sufficient evidence for careless driving/driving without due care (same thing) then you'd be prosecuted. You've been warned about your bad driving. If the police come across you again within 12 months then they don't need to give you another warning. They just seize the car you're driving. Also, if the car is again seen being driven badly then they are entitled to seize it. They can lawfully enter your drive and garage to do so. Using force if necessary. Do not sign anything at the time. You shouldn't do anything within 14 days of the offence date so as not to give them time to issue a written notice of intended prosecution. A letter to the chief constable should follow if you're on firm ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Farrimond Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 The reality is that the lad was in experienced and should have contested this section 59. With no PROOF this would have been dropped and no court action taken. The reality is, if someone's too close to you, you don't increase the gap by speeding up. Quite the opposite, you make it so that the gap they have left if safe for the speed your doing i.e. slow down. As you say it's quite sad when people are being persuied over such petty things and others get away with murder (literally) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyboy5 Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Its difficult to comment because none of us really know the full circumstances around the initial incident. You may find (not that im accusing anybody of lying) hat the story has been 'dulled' down a bit however it may be spot on. As none of us were there we cant tell for sure. If the story is 100% correct then the Police will debate, "why did he speed up? If he felt threatened then he should have pulled over and let us past". Speeding up because your worried about the car behind isnt a defensive measure, if anything a more dangerous manoeuvre. Somebody once taught me a very important saying and can be applied to most conversations, "there is always three sides of a story. Yours, Mine and then the truth." Section 59s are a great tool that the Police use. They are mainly used against 'boy racers' or people causing Anti Social Behaviour. They obviously deemed it to be dangerous or anti social. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid life crisis Posted March 29, 2013 Author Share Posted March 29, 2013 Steve that is my concern The lad was inexperianced, and was on his own. But two police officers jointly had him sign the section 59 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a4gom Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 With no PROOF this would have been dropped and no court action taken. I haven't got a clue about section 59 and things may have changed since I was a 20 year old but I went to court over a speeding conviction which I was issued by two bobbies in a police car, not a traffic car, so they had no equipment to record my speed. I know I wasn't speeding, it was 2 in the morning I was driving a mk2 escort rally car, red and white with forest arches etc.. I'd dropped a mate off and seen them parked up a side street, I knew they would be following me so was very careful about my speed. Anyway the judge decided the verbal evidence of 2 officers of the law was proof enough against a spotty teenager! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Farrimond Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Unfortunately he'll have to learn from his mistakes. NEVER accept or sign anything at the side of the road, they can give you paperwork but don't commit to anything. Take time to think, speak to someone who has your interests at heart and then go to the police station, the following day to produce documents and sort the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid life crisis Posted March 29, 2013 Author Share Posted March 29, 2013 kirkyboy4, we are not talking about boy racers in their chavy novas here The car was being driven by a responsible level headed comercial law student, who is well known to our family. The car it's self is way beyond the means of the average wooden top constable! which is where I think the problem lies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyboy5 Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Very true steve Now hes signed hes going to be struggling contesting it. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Farrimond Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 I haven't got a clue about section 59 and things may have changed since I was a 20 year old but I went to court over a speeding conviction which I was issued by two bobbies in a police car, not a traffic car, so they had no equipment to record my speed. I know I wasn't speeding, it was 2 in the morning I was driving a mk2 escort rally car, red and white with forest arches etc.. I'd dropped a mate off and seen them parked up a side street, I knew they would be following me so was very careful about my speed. Anyway the judge decided the verbal evidence of 2 officers of the law was proof enough against a spotty teenager! Very true, in past days. But now a police division wouldn't take a case as such to court, there's to many other things to contend with (counter claims, harassment, racism etc...) you get the gist. There would have to be good reason to take this to court with no proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyboy5 Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 there is nothing in his favour... If we look at it for the top: Hes sped away from an unmarked police car instead of slowing down or pulling over Hes signed (so therefore accepted) the Section 59 The video and verbal evidence of two police officers, who I imagine would be traffic officers in an unmarked car would outweigh any other evidence present against them...especialy now hes signed it. What we have to remember here is a Section 59 is mearly a warning not prosecution. As you say, if hes such a good/straight driver normally then Im sure he wont do anything to warrant the seizure of his vehicle in the next 12 months. And please refrain from being childish and insulting officers who risk their lives everyday for the publics safety Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Farrimond Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 I don't know the full ins and outs, but I know that the section 59 is on the car and not the driver, also the insurence company are to be informed, or in an accident the insurence would be deemed invalid. This is information that the insurance company will have. They will not prompt you, they will just revoke insurance if required to pay up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid life crisis Posted March 29, 2013 Author Share Posted March 29, 2013 there is nothing in his favour... If we look at it for the top: Hes sped away from an unmarked police car instead of slowing down or pulling over Hes signed (so therefore accepted) the Section 59 The video and verbal evidence of two police officers, who I imagine would be traffic officers in an unmarked car would outweigh any other evidence present against them...especialy now hes signed it. What we have to remember here is a Section 59 is mearly a warning not prosecution. As you say, if hes such a good/straight driver normally then Im sure he wont do anything to warrant the seizure of his vehicle in the next 12 months. And please refrain from being childish and insulting officers who risk their lives everyday for the publics safety Dan Hes sped away from an unmarked police car instead of slowing down or pulling over How would the lad know it was an unmarked police car following him? It was unmarked!!!!! And please refrain from being childish and insulting officers who risk their lives everyday for the publics safety Nothing insulting in stating that the average officer could NOT afford the car they stopped, in the public domain! What is concerning, is having spent the not considerable amount of money in training these officers and their on going salaries, they behave in this outrageous mannor I think a very strong letter, naming the officers to the Chief Constable and his boss, the newly appointed Gov Rep, from the lads parents should follow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyboy5 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I meant that "Hes sped away from an unmarked police car instead of slowing down or pulling over" in the way that if anything an unmarked car is worse to speed away from because they will claim he was tying to 'race'. If it was a marked police car then I can bet he wouldn't have sped away. At the end of the day you or I do not know the exact circumstances of the incident. If we did we could both comment on what they did wrong/right but as we dont whats the point. If he really feels that two grown professional men 'bullied' him into signing a piece of paper then he can make an official complaint against the two officers. However he is grown up enough to be driving on the roads, so therefore he should be grown up enough to make his own decision and not sign anything. Hope this helps dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid life crisis Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 OK let me get this clear in my mind If you are followed by a marked police car traveling at a reasonable distance behind you without blues and two's, you continue to drive normaly (never known a trained traffic officer to ever tailgate) If the marked police car puts on his blues and two's you pull over If you get tailgated by an unmarked police vehicle without any identificattion, just a set of headlights at 12.15 am having taken your girlfriend home. Putting a bit of distance from the car in your eyes is considered as speeding away ??? I can assure you, that in those circumstances .......................................................................... Did type a reply but thought better of it :laugh: :laugh: Anyway just to give the heads up to any members who have kids Fortunatly it was not daughter or lad "this time" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Everall Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 2am in the morning with any car trailing you would be worrying and the last thing I would want to do is slow down . What if it was a young girl or woman? Lots of car jackings going on with quality cars at the moment so he has my sympathy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.