PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

sec 59 given on a witness statement.
dowot
post Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 18:06
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 26 Nov 2012
Member No.: 58,551



hi , just had a visit from the police and given a section 59. this was issued solely on a witness statement. apparently i had been donutting in a gravel car park , the evidence was seen by a police officer , a statement given by a witness and now i have a sec 59. surely this is wrong , i may / probably was in the car park on that day as i walk my dog there but doing donuts... i was not. help .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 18:06
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
jimster
post Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 18:44
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,319
Joined: 7 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,503



QUOTE (dowot @ Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 18:06) *
i may / probably was in the car park on that day as i walk my dog there but doing donuts... i was not.

Did your dog do any donuts? biggrin.gif

Are you saying you were not in your car on that day?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulajayne
post Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 18:58
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 894
Joined: 13 Jul 2011
From: Bocking
Member No.: 48,194



QUOTE (dowot @ Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 18:06) *
the evidence was seen by a police officer ,



What evidence? Did someone video or take pictures?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dowot
post Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 19:05
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 26 Nov 2012
Member No.: 58,551



sorry i wasn't clear, i drove to the car park walked the dog and drove home, mind you, not 100% sure i was there at the time stated, and even if i was i didn't do any donuts.. as for the dog doing donuts ... more like cow pats .

This post has been edited by dowot: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 19:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 20:38
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



So be clear. Someone has made this up completely and deliberately given the Police your registration number even though you were doing nothing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dowot
post Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 21:01
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 26 Nov 2012
Member No.: 58,551



the evidence was indentations or skid marks in the car park, and a witness statement to the effect that me in my car was donutting.

the area has had a spate of damage and antisocial behaviour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roadrunner 163
post Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 21:46
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 10 May 2010
Member No.: 37,442



If your not in the habit of driving in a an anti social manner then this case of mistaken identity will pass in 12 months and nothing will come of it.
Technically there is no case of appeal for a Sec 59 warning just any action taken after it.
That said if your prone to spurious allegations then I would be careful where I walked the dog.

I am a little confused, was the witness reporting to the police or was the police officer the witness?


--------------------
Ticking an incorrect box does not make me guilty as one of the other boxes does apply to me. - Your honour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dowot
post Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 21:50
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 26 Nov 2012
Member No.: 58,551



a witness reported it to the police. fair enough in the grand scheme of things its minor but its the being accused of something and then have the judge jury and executioner bit that is a bit much to take. no right of appeal or even the opportunity to say it wasn't me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roadrunner 163
post Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 21:55
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 10 May 2010
Member No.: 37,442



I agree its not ideal, in fact its far from it, some areas will consider a well structured appeal but this is a local policy so it could be worth contacting the officers sergeant to review the evidence and decide on the strength of the evidence this warning was issued. there is no reason why the evidence of a warning should be any less than the evidence that would form the basis of a prosecution.
CPS would rarely work with a one against one his word against yours unless the witness is a professional witness / police officer.


--------------------
Ticking an incorrect box does not make me guilty as one of the other boxes does apply to me. - Your honour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dowot
post Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 22:13
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 26 Nov 2012
Member No.: 58,551



in the very short and abrupt conversation i was told that the officer and his sergeant had read the statement and the sec 59 was decided. to be honest i'm a tad narked about the whole thing and have always considered myself law abiding but this sort of thing makes me wonder if the is one rule for some and another for others.

This post has been edited by dowot: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - 22:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 27 Nov 2012 - 07:57
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



For someone who has been subject to someone else perverting the course of justice by fabricating evidence you seem remarkably untroubled. Because this member of the public has fabricated an offence and deliberately named an innocent person as guilty.

I suggest you contact the officers Sgt and make it clear you are making this allegation and demand it be investigated. The witnesses account will fall apart if investigated and they will be in deep **** and you will get your s59 lifted.

If however it's true best not to bother.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 27 Nov 2012 - 08:19
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,185
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



If the Sargeant has already been involved, then a firmly (rather than strongly) worded letter to the local CC sounds in order, issuing an S59 on the basis of a single witness seems an abuse of the intent behind the statute, either the witness is malicious or saw your car and jumped to a conlcuion it was you doing donuts. Having a valid reason for being ther (walking the dog) would seem to be evidence in your favour, besides if you did donuts with our dog in the car it would recolour the interior for you a funny yellow colour and make it smell!


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pete D
post Tue, 27 Nov 2012 - 08:50
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,745
Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Member No.: 11,456



The OP originally states "the evidence was seen by a police officer , a statement given by a witness" Can you detail if the officer actually witnessed you doing donuts, or did he not witness that but did see the marks after the witness had reported it. Pete D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 27 Nov 2012 - 09:02
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



Writing to the CC is a waste of time. He won't even know you have written. Better write to the PC's Inspector as that's who your letter will end up with in the end.

QUOTE
issuing an S59 on the basis of a single witness seems an abuse of the intent behind the statute,


Your evidence for this statement is?

QUOTE
either the witness is malicious or saw your car and jumped to a conlcuion it was you doing donuts.


Or the OP's account is not accurate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brillig
post Tue, 27 Nov 2012 - 09:24
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,308



My reading/interpretation of the OP was that an allegation was made by a witness who showed an Officer evidence in the form of ruts/tyre marks in the car park.

I suppose therefore that the Officer could potentially deduce from the marks that it was possible that someone had been donutting but I'm struggling to find a way of linking the OP to the marks and I suspect that it's a sufficently low level offence to warrant comparing tyre type/marks by SOCO....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dowot
post Tue, 27 Nov 2012 - 10:00
Post #16


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 26 Nov 2012
Member No.: 58,551



thanks for the replies.. smile.gif

as for feeling "not bothered" if i was to post up that i wanted to go slap someone then maybe that would exprees how i feel a bit better but seeing as though i'm not some little spotty oight but a 41 year old and have an actual grasp of reality i know that a, posting that would be wrong and b,pointless. yes i'm narked at the so called witness and narked at the officer and sergeant who without even asking me have foung me guilty of something and finally narked at the system that has allowed them to do this........

but, at the end of the day what can i do?? write a strongly worded letter and hope that sense prevails or sit back take a breath and think "idiots of the world unite" and get on with my life.

i appreciate the fact that this is the internet and as such not real life and that the opinions / replies given are done so without any sense of malice and on the info presented but the fact that i have been given a sec 59 for alledegedly donutting in a car park on the say so of an individual with no evidence bar the statement and some marks in the gravel, backed by two police officers and i wasn't even consulted is a bit much.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 27 Nov 2012 - 11:01
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



QUOTE
i have been given a sec 59 for alledegedly donutting in a car park on the say so of an individual with no evidence bar the statement and some marks in the gravel, backed by two police officers and i wasn't even consulted is a bit much.


I think one of the problems is that a suspect isn't consulted about anything. If they had spoken to you, you would have denied the event happened. As it is you have the choice of fighting it by making the complaint as previously described or accepting it. If you do not fight this no-one will do it for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dowot
post Tue, 27 Nov 2012 - 11:08
Post #18


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 26 Nov 2012
Member No.: 58,551



yes , but as a suspect i would at least been able to defend myself rather than being accused , found guilty and i suppose sentenced without knowing anything about it until given the sec59.

as for the letter are there any specifics other than literally pleading my case that would help me??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 27 Nov 2012 - 16:12
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,185
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Nope....there is no formal 'apepal' process against an S59, so you have to appeal to logic and common sense.


QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 27 Nov 2012 - 09:02) *
Writing to the CC is a waste of time. He won't even know you have written. Better write to the PC's Inspector as that's who your letter will end up with in the end.

QUOTE
issuing an S59 on the basis of a single witness seems an abuse of the intent behind the statute,


Your evidence for this statement is?

QUOTE
either the witness is malicious or saw your car and jumped to a conlcuion it was you doing donuts.


Or the OP's account is not accurate.

Point1 as the only evidence is someones verbal testimony, it would seem logical to interview the accused and arrive at a 'verdict' (conclusion) prior to issuing an S172, hence it seems an abuse, after all it's akin to fining someone guilty after listening to the prosecution case only - your point having not read what I wrote was........

Point2 unless there is indication otherwise, general policy on here is to believe a poster and it really went without saying



--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 27 Nov 2012 - 16:43
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



Read these

QUOTE
this was issued solely on a witness statement


QUOTE
i was told that the officer and his sergeant had read the statement and the sec 59 was decided


Then rethink this

QUOTE
as the only evidence is someones verbal testimony,


So we have a competent witness who has committed themselves to a s9 statement and is willing to stand by their account in court. The OP is saying they were walking their dog but drove there and nothing happened. Whilst I would always speak to the accused first there is nothing which requires this.

What I wanted was you to justify the statement "intent behind the statute".

IIRC this exactly fits with the Home Office advice circulated when this legislation came in, in other words tackling anti-social behaviour and not relying on anecdotal evidence but rather admissible evidence such as a statement.

As for believing the OP. I haven't said I don't believe him, I have simply pointed out and questioned why a member of the public would completely fabricate such an allegation and commit that to paper as well as showing Police physical evidence to support the allegation.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 16th August 2018 - 22:00
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.