Section 59 notice

Any other 'PCSO issues' that do not fit in to the other forums. Recruitment of PCSOs, day to day PCSO duties, questions about law, joining the regular police, becoming a special, anything else remotely PCSO orientated!!

Moderator: national-PCSOs

User avatar
geordiepaul2005
Executive Officer
Executive Officer
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Up North

Section 59 notice

Post by geordiepaul2005 » Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:35 pm

Hi folks,

I think I know the answer to thid already but I am looking for some confirmation.

I have a punter with a s59 notice within 12 months old.
I have a neighbour of his who is willing to put a statement in regarding his use of a motorcycle in the surrounding park areas.
This statement would give us the power to search his garage a.nd/or out building with a view to seizing the vehicle.

At any point does the details of the source/informant/witness need to be disclosed?
Obviously the close proximity of offender and witness is a concern.

Thanks in advance.
I'm running the Great North Run 2011 to raise money and awareness for the Make-A-Wish foundation who sent my little girl on the holiday of a lifetime to Disney World in December 2010.
Please sponsor me at http://www.justgiving.com/paulmawson - thank you

User avatar
typecastboy
Gold Elite Legion
Gold Elite Legion
Posts: 1992
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:08 pm
Sacred: 'Warrior'

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by typecastboy » Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:00 pm

Don't know the answer to this, but why doesn't the informant notify you when he's out in the park, so you can come and confiscate the bike?
____________________________________________
July 2008 - Passed Papersift
Oct 2008 - Day 1 AC
Nov 2008 - Passed Day 1
Nov 2008 - Day 2 Fitness/Medical - Passed
Jan 2009 - Start Training in Sidcup
Mar 2009 - On Borough

SINGLE PATROL IS THE WAY FORWARD

mj12cz
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 2009
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: lincs

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by mj12cz » Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:41 pm

Yes you would need to disclose the informant, as the owner of the bike or his lawyer would have access to the statement should he wish to challenge it.

Sorry mate, I know its not what you want to hear.

OBTW sounds like a good bit of PCSO'ing to me.
"Its a mother beautiful bridge and its going to be there"

Save the cheer leader, save the world.....

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
George Orwell

User avatar
Big Brother
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 2:36 pm
Examiner: XIII
Location: Somewhere

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by Big Brother » Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:51 pm

I would never rely on a member of public for this, and very rarely for the initial warning, section 59's are never challenged at court because as a rule it's an activity that has been witnessed by pc/pcso so it's normally ironclad.

If this guy has a warning and you know the times/days he rides then take a couple of hours out of patrol, and wait for him. Bit more time consuming but less likely to end in tears later on.
Good luck
Big brother is watching you.

JEA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:19 pm

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by JEA » Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:52 pm

A PCSO only has the power to search non-dwelling buildings accompanied by, and under the direction of, a constable.

It's the only part of the sec 59 powers that doesn't transfer directly to a PCSO.

The legislation says the power applies if the vehicle has been used "on any occasion" to meet the criteria set out. There's a brief explanation of how "on any occasion" is interpreted on PNLD.

It's not done regularly in my force either (in fact I was searching for a seizure notice this week only to find there wasn't one in my force, even traffic haven't typed one up because they haven't had to use one, they only have sec. 165 notices), but issuing sec 59 warnings and even seizing could be done retrospectively based on witness statements. I know it's done in some forces.

My question regarding this would be if a mop has seen a vehicle driving in a manner that meets the sec 59 criteria, and passes a VRN to the police but can't say who's driving (and the RK won't cough who was driving it). Can you issue the warning to just the vehicle? Common sense says yes but the legislation says it applies to both the vehicle and the driver, it doesn't say you can pick and choose.

Also, has anyone issued one to a mini-moto or other vehicle without a VRN? How do you record the fact as the vehicle won't be on PNC?

User avatar
Big Brother
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 2:36 pm
Examiner: XIII
Location: Somewhere

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by Big Brother » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:10 am

JEA wrote:
Also, has anyone issued one to a mini-moto or other vehicle without a VRN? How do you record the fact as the vehicle won't be on PNC?


you don't. You just record the details of the person riding.
Big brother is watching you.

User avatar
Janner
Registered Member
Registered Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:22 am
Location: South West

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by Janner » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:29 pm

The Sec 59 applies to both the rider and the vehicle ie if the rider has been given a notice and is subsequently stopped again on a different vehicle that vehicle can be seized (had one, and it was found that he had taken the bike without consent so the owner got his bike back but the driver was done for TWOC).The same applies if the reported/recorded vehicle is ridden by someone else, it can be seized.

Regarding mini moto,s we take a picture of the bike and keep it on file with a copy of the original Sec 59 warning. If the mini moto is a persistant little so & so get a PC collegue to 165 it

Janner
He who lives in glass houses should,nt throw stones

Daily Mail = Toilet Paper

JEA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:19 pm

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by JEA » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:30 pm

Janner wrote:
Regarding mini moto,s we take a picture of the bike and keep it on file with a copy of the original Sec 59 warning.

Janner
Good idea, might use that. It would mean that only the NPT would be aware, but better than nothing.
Janner wrote: The Sec 59 applies to both the rider and the vehicle ie if the rider has been given a notice and is subsequently stopped again on a different vehicle that vehicle can be seized (had one, and it was found that he had taken the bike without consent so the owner got his bike back but the driver was done for TWOC).The same applies if the reported/recorded vehicle is ridden by someone else, it can be seized.
But what if you can't prove who was driving (but can prove the vehicle was being used contrary to sec. 59)? Can you issue it to just the vehicle? Or is it then not suitable for sec 59?

JimmyRiddle
Elite Member
Elite Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:59 pm

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by JimmyRiddle » Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:01 pm

You can issue just to the vehicle. Say you found the vehicle with youths, hot (indicated just used) on a field after complaints. You could sieze it (better choice) straight off, but if you're absolutely mad, you could place a warning on the vehicle if nobody owns up to riding it.

If no VRM, look for chassis or VIN number on it.

Oh, and you have the legal right to use reasonable force in exercising this power btw! And before anyone asks, this is EXPLICITLY defined in s.59 PRA 2002. So, in other words, every single PCSO in the country has this use of force here.
Power of arrest for PCSOs for 'as and when' - s24a PACE & common law (i.e. BoP) using s3 CLA 1967

I'm a PCSO, I will WATCH you get your head kicked in (as per force policy)

User avatar
Janner
Registered Member
Registered Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:22 am
Location: South West

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by Janner » Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:10 am

Jea wrote
"Good idea, might use that. It would mean that only the NPT would be aware, but better than nothing."

In addition to the photo,s/copies of paperwork we also update S & C (community intel account) so as if the bike or rider is checked (over the radio) the RDO can confirm the issuing of a SEC 59, I appreciate it seems like more time on the computer but for us it has paid dividends especialy for the idiots who swop the bikes around.

Janner
He who lives in glass houses should,nt throw stones

Daily Mail = Toilet Paper

JEA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:19 pm

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by JEA » Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:15 pm

In my force people don't tend to check intel on a vehicle, just PNC, unless they are looking for grounds to search it.

The new mobile data devices we're getting will apparently interrogate PNC and intel databases at the same time so maybe that will help. (for a person check they'll also interrogate our vulnerable adults database, firearms licence, child protection, intel, PNC and our crime recording system Niche!)

User avatar
overthinker1977
Committee Member
Committee Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by overthinker1977 » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:00 pm

The beauty of S-59 is that if it becomes "impractical to provide a warning" you can seize it instantly. (I think someone has already said this but just expanding on that a little for those who arn't sure). Being impractical might mean:
Unidentifiable vehicle (no VRM etc) with no one admitting to riding it so you can't put the 59 on the vehicle or person it then becomes impractical. -GONE-.
Supporter of Police
scum = criminals

JEA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:19 pm

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by JEA » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:30 am

overthinker1977 wrote:The beauty of S-59 is that if it becomes "impractical to provide a warning" you can seize it instantly. (I think someone has already said this but just expanding on that a little for those who arn't sure). Being impractical might mean:
Unidentifiable vehicle (no VRM etc) with no one admitting to riding it so you can't put the 59 on the vehicle or person it then becomes impractical. -GONE-.

:sltee: :sltee:

I was aware of that, but it didn't cross my mind to apply it to vehicles with out a VRN.

User avatar
geordiepaul2005
Executive Officer
Executive Officer
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Up North

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by geordiepaul2005 » Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:48 am

Just looked through the section 59 info from our force intranet and it doesn't mention the power to seize if impractical to issue a warning.
I thought it was once the first warning was breached.
What if there is no vrm but there is a chasis number - would that then make it practical to issue one?
I'm running the Great North Run 2011 to raise money and awareness for the Make-A-Wish foundation who sent my little girl on the holiday of a lifetime to Disney World in December 2010.
Please sponsor me at http://www.justgiving.com/paulmawson - thank you

JimmyRiddle
Elite Member
Elite Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:59 pm

Re: Section 59 notice

Post by JimmyRiddle » Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:41 am

If you found a chassis number, then you could issue a warning assuming someone accepted responsibility for it.

Don't forget the caution either.

Also, look it up on PNLD (search your intranet for it), all you need is there, even the wording to use at the time, although I wouldn't recommend you use a script! :wink:

Although, my only question is, how does a PCSO sieze it? On a stop form? And if siezed under s.59, I believe there is no chance of collecting from the compound unlike no insurance?
Power of arrest for PCSOs for 'as and when' - s24a PACE & common law (i.e. BoP) using s3 CLA 1967

I'm a PCSO, I will WATCH you get your head kicked in (as per force policy)

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic