Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Speeding and other Criminal Offences _ Loitering,littering and and anti-social driving ?

Posted by: DaveyBadBoy Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 06:36
Post #1450044

Morning,

My daughter was recently parked in a car park with 2 other vehicles. 1 of the other drivers had days previously received a warning from the police about frequenting a particular location, loitering,revving loudly and throwing McDonald wrappers out of the window. My daughter has never been to this location with her friend or as a group.

My daughter was approached by the same officer who had issued the warning to her friend days earlier. The officer asked was her name "XXXX". My daughter said no, she was then asked to confirm her name which she did. She was then asked was she aware of a particular address, she said no. The officer then went on describe where the address was in more detail, my daughter then realised she did know the address. The officer then asked her had she ever been there and my daughter said "maybe twice,but ages ago". The police lady then said we have a letter for you too. End of conversation. My daughter returned home and told us of the events.

The next day the Police arrived at our address with a brown hand written envelope. Officer said she was issuing a warning letter because our vehicle had been reported revving loudly, throwing litter and being driven anti socially at said address.

I asked what date did these offences take place, as 4 family members drive that vehicle, officer said there are no dates but this cars reg has "been reported" to us as being "part of a group" responsible. I repeated again I would like dates as the vehicle has a tracker for insurance purposes that records everything including location and manner of driving including speed,corenering acceleration and braking rates. And is scored daily.We also have CCTV at home to prove if the car was actually in use at all the times she said it was being anti social. Again I was told there was no dates ?

I put the letter straight in the bin without opening it in front of the officer and said if you cant provide dates, or incident numbers of the alledged offences I cannot take the warning seriously.

We was warned if alledged behavior is repeated the car will be seized.

I got the car keys out and started the car for the officer, it s a tiny 1.0 litre with a really quiet engine its barely audible, i revved it up for him and said are you seriously saying the noise is anti social ? The officer agreed it was a really quiet car but said if my daughter carrys on going to that place and driving around with "the others" they would seize the car. She does not go to that place but historically the car has been there, twice in its lifetime. Weeks and weeks ago.

Officer said "its a only a letter this time but next time it will be more serious".

Anybody have any idea what has just gone on and whether its legally enforceable?

Many Thanks



Posted by: Dwaynedouglas Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 07:12
Post #1450047

I suspect the answer is in the letter you threw away, however this is only speculation.

I would further guess that it is a s.59 notice:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59

(from https://www.westmercia.police.uk/article/25924/Section-59-Issued)

'A Section 59 was written in law to stop anti-social use of motor vehicles. Effectively the law is there to stop inappropriate use of vehicles that annoy the public or place people at risk.

It also stops offenders who disrupt the quality of life of others at homes nearby. A Section 59 Warning is issued first to allow the driver to make adjustments to their driving style or to their motor vehicles.

If there are any further complaints about the driver once the Section 59 Warning has been issued, Police then have the power to seize the motor vehicle. Once the vehicle is seized, the keeper of the vehicle is then liable for recovery and storage costs once they get the vehicle back.'


But I remind you that this is all supposition until we know what was in the letter.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:58
Post #1450076

Throwing the letter away was rather silly* to say the least, I'd try and get it back and open it.
It sounds like an S59 warning, while there is no formal challenge that can be made to one a decent letter to a local CC can have some effect.


*Polite version

Posted by: AntonyMMM Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 09:43
Post #1450088

The letter may have had better information or an explanation, but my guess would be a group of vehicles gathered together, perhaps regularly, and some being "shown off" - revving engines, squealing tyres etc , and others just watching. ..... all VRMs are noted down and reported, and police response is to issue a blanket s59 on all the vehicles present.

Quite a common way of dealing with car park gatherings.

Posted by: Churchmouse Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 12:58
Post #1450182

Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002. It helps the police do policey things--at the expense of the public's rightsy things. You may now write to your MP...

--Churchmouse

Posted by: Darkatmosphere Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 20:59
Post #1450344

Only options here are speaking with the force area Chief Constable who issued the S59 warning or writing a letter, The second option would be opt for a judicial review at the high court be warned it can be expensive.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 22:34
Post #1450373

QUOTE (Darkatmosphere @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 20:59) *
Only options here are speaking with the force area Chief Constable who issued the S59 warning or writing a letter, The second option would be opt for a judicial review at the high court be warned it can be expensive.

Standing might be an issue when it's only a warning.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 23:17
Post #1450393

Maybe me being sceptical but if my daughter told me the police had warned her about an address that they initially couldn't remember, but then did go there in the dim and distant past, I would at least be hearing the police out. It seems incredibly unlucky that they were chosen at random in McD and *coincidentally* knew that address.

As for revving the one litre car, I'm surprised that the officers didn't say "yes, that noise, that's what car meets sound like".

Not disbelieving you, but in my parenting experiences "freak occurrences" happen fairly often to kids. There are plenty of examples on here if parents being told a slightly santised version of what happened.

Posted by: Darkatmosphere Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:21
Post #1450480

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 22:34) *
QUOTE (Darkatmosphere @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 20:59) *
Only options here are speaking with the force area Chief Constable who issued the S59 warning or writing a letter, The second option would be opt for a judicial review at the high court be warned it can be expensive.

Standing might be an issue when it's only a warning.

Its the legal process of the warning the OP I think is questioning, did they do it right?, could they do it that way? I mean the police did not witness the incident, a person reported it, did they identify them accurately, did they have they Reg accurate? Was the process of issuing a warning within the realms of the law and force guidance?
I think standing is there for it to be heard.

Another option other than judicial review, is police ombudsman.


Posted by: mickR Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:48
Post #1450490

Some plod are using section59 as an intimidative tool. My son was threatened with vehicle confiscation along with one other vehicle simply for being in the vicinity of a meet which wasn't actually happening and there were no other cars around. His car was not loud or anti social in any way a 6 month old factory spec car.
In the OPs case, assuming the fact are exactly as described I would also question the process. To serve a s59 where there appears to be no corroberated evidence seems an abuse of authority.

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 12:03
Post #1450499

QUOTE (Darkatmosphere @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:21) *
I mean the police did not witness the incident, a person reported it, did they identify them accurately, did they have they Reg accurate? Was the process of issuing a warning within the realms of the law and force guidance?
I think standing is there for it to be heard.

Another option other than judicial review, is police ombudsman.

We don't know from the posts whether it was witnessed by a Police officer, PCSO or member of the public, to say it wasn't is a leap of faith?
The identity doesn't seem in question as the driver has admitted being there? Same applies to the reg.

We don't know what the warning is, formal, informal or an S59 (as seems likely), if it's an S59 it has to comply with the law, not force guidance.

I thought the only Police Ombudsman in the UK was for NI?

Posted by: Darkatmosphere Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 15:27
Post #1450569

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 12:03) *
QUOTE (Darkatmosphere @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:21) *
I mean the police did not witness the incident, a person reported it, did they identify them accurately, did they have they Reg accurate? Was the process of issuing a warning within the realms of the law and force guidance?
I think standing is there for it to be heard.

Another option other than judicial review, is police ombudsman.

We don't know from the posts whether it was witnessed by a Police officer, PCSO or member of the public, to say it wasn't is a leap of faith?
The identity doesn't seem in question as the driver has admitted being there? Same applies to the reg.

We don't know what the warning is, formal, informal or an S59 (as seems likely), if it's an S59 it has to comply with the law, not force guidance.

I thought the only Police Ombudsman in the UK was for NI?

or PCC then for correctness.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 19:16
Post #1450639

To be honest the best way forward in this scenario is to have a dashcam and importantly make sure it records audio. If the car is seized under section 59, make sure to grab the SD card or preferably the whole camera out of the car (they normally let you collect your belongings out of the car) and get a taxi home. If you have a video showing the car was being driven in a totally routine manner and in could no way be considered to have been driven antisocially, a letter to the force's legal department with the video and a claim for the cost of towing + taxi home + taxi to the pound to recover the car should result in a swift payment.

Posted by: Logician Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 20:37
Post #1450675

QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:48) *
Some plod are using section59 as an intimidative tool. My son was threatened with vehicle confiscation along with one other vehicle simply for being in the vicinity of a meet which wasn't actually happening and there were no other cars around. His car was not loud or anti social in any way a 6 month old factory spec car. In the OPs case, assuming the fact are exactly as described I would also question the process. To serve a s59 where there appears to be no corroberated evidence seems an abuse of authority.


The police are now obtaining court orders forbidding various activities in areas which have been used for car meets, one of those is driving in convoy which of course would not normally be anti-social or anything else. If your son and the other car drove together to an area covered by such an order, they would be breaching it. In fact it is a risk now for anyone to be even in the area of a car meet.


Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27
Post #1450694

QUOTE (Logician @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 20:37) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:48) *
Some plod are using section59 as an intimidative tool. My son was threatened with vehicle confiscation along with one other vehicle simply for being in the vicinity of a meet which wasn't actually happening and there were no other cars around. His car was not loud or anti social in any way a 6 month old factory spec car. In the OPs case, assuming the fact are exactly as described I would also question the process. To serve a s59 where there appears to be no corroberated evidence seems an abuse of authority.


The police are now obtaining court orders forbidding various activities in areas which have been used for car meets, one of those is driving in convoy which of course would not normally be anti-social or anything else. If your son and the other car drove together to an area covered by such an order, they would be breaching it. In fact it is a risk now for anyone to be even in the area of a car meet.

Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 22:52
Post #1450716

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.

Intu obtained an injunction from the High Court preventing various activities at each of their sites in England and Wales. I’ve seen notices at several sites referring to it and it can be found https://www.intugroup.co.uk/media/4956/sealed-injunction-order.pdf. The order deals with publication.

Posted by: Logician Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 01:52
Post #1450757

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.


The orders are against "persons unknown" and are broad in scope; personal service of the injunction is dispensed with pursuant to rule 81.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The provision against driving in convoy would actually cover a funeral cortege, a point which has been raised with councils and police, who respond that of course the order will be applied with discretion. It is concerning that perfectly legitimate activities should be covered in this way, and the public have to rely on police discretion in applying it. I think the first such order covered the Black Country, and full details are https://www.dudley.gov.uk/residents/parking-and-roads/roads-highways-and-pavements/car-cruising-injunction/

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 10:17
Post #1450784

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 22:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.

Intu obtained an injunction from the High Court preventing various activities at each of their sites in England and Wales. I’ve seen notices at several sites referring to it and it can be found https://www.intugroup.co.uk/media/4956/sealed-injunction-order.pdf. The order deals with publication.

The order is directed at the defendants and "any other person who knows of this order", so if someone has no idea the order exists, and they help Ryan Taylor do something that is a breach of the order, that person cannot be in contempt of court or otherwise in breach of the order.

QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 01:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.


The orders are against "persons unknown" and are broad in scope; personal service of the injunction is dispensed with pursuant to rule 81.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The provision against driving in convoy would actually cover a funeral cortege, a point which has been raised with councils and police, who respond that of course the order will be applied with discretion. It is concerning that perfectly legitimate activities should be covered in this way, and the public have to rely on police discretion in applying it. I think the first such order covered the Black Country, and full details are https://www.dudley.gov.uk/residents/parking-and-roads/roads-highways-and-pavements/car-cruising-injunction/

Well again, CPR 81.8 says:

"(1) In the case of a judgment or order requiring a person not to do an act, the court may dispense with service of a copy of the judgment or order in accordance with rules 81.5 to 81.7 if it is satisfied that the person has had notice of it –

(a) by being present when the judgment or order was given or made; or

(b) by being notified of its terms by telephone, email or otherwise.
"

So while the court can dispense with service, it cannot impute knowledge, hence a total of 7 paragraph dealing with how the claimants must publicise the existence of the order. If despite all the warnings and advertising someone could show that they genuinely did not know about the order, I don't see how the HC could hold them in contempt.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:27
Post #1450801

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 10:17) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 22:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.

Intu obtained an injunction from the High Court preventing various activities at each of their sites in England and Wales. I’ve seen notices at several sites referring to it and it can be found https://www.intugroup.co.uk/media/4956/sealed-injunction-order.pdf. The order deals with publication.

The order is directed at the defendants and "any other person who knows of this order", so if someone has no idea the order exists, and they help Ryan Taylor do something that is a breach of the order, that person cannot be in contempt of court or otherwise in breach of the order.



The point being that there are ways to apply orders against the world at large. Very many orders will apply to anyone who has knowledge of them and the order itself can define how that knowledge can be imported.

Posted by: The Rookie Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:39
Post #1450805

Will you be able to import it after Brexit? ......... sorry.

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:37
Post #1450831

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:27) *
The point being that there are ways to apply orders against the world at large. Very many orders will apply to anyone who has knowledge of them and the order itself can define how that knowledge can be imported.

I am happy to be corrected on this point but I am yet to see an order that purports to bind a person who has no knowledge of it at all. In any of the cases quoted, the court would make a finding of fact on whether the person accused of breaching the order had any knowledge of it. This can be obviated by making it all but impossible to not become aware of the order (such as by installing large signs by the side of the road as done in the car cruising ban order), but nonetheless a finding of fact that the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the order's existence would need to be made.

This is qualitatively different from an enactment, where the court will simply say that a person who has contravened an enactment is guilty of breaching the enactment (and potentially liable to a civil or criminal penalty), regardless of whether they had any knowledge of it.

I guess my point is, ignorance of the law is no defence (except, in theory, for section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007), but ignorance of a court order is.

Posted by: NewJudge Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:36
Post #1450863

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:39) *
Will you be able to import it after Brexit? ......... sorry.

Take that man's name, sergeant. laugh.gif

I think the High Court deals with the issue of "knowledge" in the Intu case by this paragraph from the order:

"Service of this order may be effected on the second defendant [“persons unknown”] by posting notice of this order and its effect at all points of public access at the Claimant’s Shopping Centres and/or by giving notice through social media."

Whilst it may not directly address the "knowledge" issue it is clear that the court considers that posting notices at entrances satisfies "service". So if the order is deemed to have been served then I reckon it's a reasonable assumption that those on whom it has been served have knowledge of its restrictions. It's true that the Person Unknown would have to visit the shopping centre to be "served" with the notice, but it's hard to see how such a person could assist Ryan Taylor unless they did.

Posted by: cabbyman Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:45
Post #1450867

I thought that a notice published in the London Gazette and 3(?) local publications used to serve as notice to the world at large. Is that no longer the case?

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 14:16
Post #1450878

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:36) *
Whilst it may not directly address the "knowledge" issue it is clear that the court considers that posting notices at entrances satisfies "service". So if the order is deemed to have been served then I reckon it's a reasonable assumption that those on whom it has been served have knowledge of its restrictions. It's true that the Person Unknown would have to visit the shopping centre to be "served" with the notice, but it's hard to see how such a person could assist Ryan Taylor unless they did.

But service is still needed by some means or another. The court in this scenario would simply make a finding of fact that because notices were placed in such a manner that the accused contemnor must have seen them, it is more likely than not that he did see them and there is your finding of fact that the accused knew about the order. If on the other hand the accused could prove to the satisfaction of the court that he actually knew nothing of the order (say it could be proven that persons unknown had criminally damaged / removed all the warning signs), the court could warn the accused not to repeat his behaviour but could not punish him for breaching a court order he knew nothing about (not at least without doing a clear and I suspect unprecedented injustice which one would hope the CoA would overturn). The High Court has many powers and its orders must be treated with the greatest of respect, but the High Court is not the Crown in Parliament.

If on the other hand we were dealing with an offence under the Prohibition of Assistance to Ryan Taylor Act 2019 the issue of knowledge would not arise at all, even if the accused could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did not know and could not reasonably have known about the statutory prohibition, he would still be guilty and would be punished accordingly.

Posted by: NewJudge Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 14:38
Post #1450886

Yes I get your point, cp. An interesting topic with many cans of worms.

Posted by: Logician Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 14:51
Post #1450892

An interesting discussion but the police would very probably simply arrest anyone who appeared to be breaching the order and leave it for the court to decide whether or not they were guilty of contempt.

Meanwhile there is also a different line of approach adopted by other local authorities, see for instance https://www.scarborough.gov.uk/sites/scarborough.gov.uk/files/files/PSPO-Signed-Car-Cruising.pdf and Essex Police pre-empting a planned event in https://www.essex.police.uk/news/news-and-features/2018/03mar/dispersal-order-in-harlow-in-response-to-potential/

Posted by: bearclaw Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50
Post #1451116

QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 01:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.


The orders are against "persons unknown" and are broad in scope; personal service of the injunction is dispensed with pursuant to rule 81.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The provision against driving in convoy would actually cover a funeral cortege, a point which has been raised with councils and police, who respond that of course the order will be applied with discretion. It is concerning that perfectly legitimate activities should be covered in this way, and the public have to rely on police discretion in applying it. I think the first such order covered the Black Country, and full details are https://www.dudley.gov.uk/residents/parking-and-roads/roads-highways-and-pavements/car-cruising-injunction/


Indeed. I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van, and also for a couple of funerals.....

Its the usual sort of mealy mouthed claptrap youd expect though for trying to defend the indefensible.

Posted by: peodude Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 12:11
Post #1452405

There has been an injunction across the Black Country for several years now, and has recently been extended.

https://www.dudley.gov.uk/residents/parking-and-roads/roads-highways-and-pavements/car-cruising-injunction/

Posted by: typefish Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:42
Post #1452440

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50) *
Indeed. I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van, and also for a couple of funerals.....


What did it say?

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:54
Post #1452445

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50) *
I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van

Haven't the police been doing that for decades when moving dangerous crims?

Posted by: Fredd Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 15:37
Post #1452454

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:54) *
QUOTE (bearclaw @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50) *
I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van

Haven't the police been doing that for decades when moving dangerous crims?


Posted by: peterguk Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 15:45
Post #1452458

QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 15:37) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:54) *
QUOTE (bearclaw @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50) *
I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van

Haven't the police been doing that for decades when moving dangerous crims?




OK, got it. laugh.gif

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 19:08
Post #1452567

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:54) *
QUOTE (bearclaw @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50) *
I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van

Haven't the police been doing that for decades when moving dangerous crims?

Yes the way they block the roads, drive on the wrong side of the road, shout instructions at motorists and do all of this while carrying various offensive weapons including firearms could be said to be pretty antisocial tongue.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)