Section 59 is unlawful: Remedy

Off-topic
1

So about a year ago I did some research in to this “Section 59” (of the Police reform act) that gets thrown around with the threat of seixing your bike from the cops…

I get the feeling the cops using it mostly to scare people off from doign certain things. They can use it if they don’t like you… if they didn’t get laid, if you caused some air to be pushed on to them as they overtook you… whatever , it’s bullshit. I’ve beeen given a section 59 warning for “the way I was revving my engine”!!! I specifically asked… it wasn’t the speed, it wasn’t the noise, it wasn’t that there’d been a complaint, it wasn’t that I was being dangerous… it wasn’t that I didn’t have permission to be there (cos I did)… it was the WAY I was revving my engine “could cause alarm or distress to the public”… It’s a bullshit trumped it one size fits all regulation that has noting to do with anything.

Anyways… I wrote a piece for Streetfighter Magazine, just wondered if anyone has actually had their bike stolen… er I mean siezed by the old bill?

If you get one It’s worth telling them about the Bill of Rights 1689 (Part of our constitution, that over-rules ALL statutes and Acts - something many cops are not taught these days) There’s a bit in there that says:

“Grants of Fines, &c. before Conviction, &c.
And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed. All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme.”
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction

which translated into English means ALL fines and punishements given (by the govt) without the OPPORTUNITY to go to court and be CONVICTED by are UNLAWFUL, null and VOID.

Section 59 (and all other on th espot fines) means you are punished without going to court - they steal your bike / car and you have to pay about £200 to get it back…

If you get you bike stolen by Police tell them this in advance. If they take it anyway, write them a NOTICE (a letter with the word “NOTICE” written at the top) referencing the above…

I’d love to hear if anyone’s had any experience with it so far.

2

Just for the record, this idea that “part of our constitution”…we don’t have a constitution, only ever had one during the reign of Cromwell and that was rescinded after his son was deposed and the King reinstated.

The Bill of Rights has no bearing in British Law since any law that contradicts a previous law impliedly repeals that Law. There is a principle in English law that Parliament can legislate anything, anywhere, essentially they can ban smoking in Paris if they want to, enforcing it will be difficult.

Therefore any law made after 1688 that directly contradicts anything in the Bill of Rights, is impliedly repealed by that law.

I have this argument with free men all the time who try and rely upon ancient laws to argue that they don’t owe Council Tax.

3

you’re right… it’s late - forgive me :wink:

The Bill or Rights is the bit in the statute book, which was written up from the DECLARATION of rights 1688. The Declaration of Rights forms part of the constitution.

When I last spoke to the police they told me that the Bill of Rights is in fact still in force.

I’d be interested to hear exaclty where you reckon this principle of assumed repeal comes from? Doesn’t sound like it uses any form of common sense. Also sounds like it it allows for a dictator to legislate what they want nice and easy. not very sensible, to say the least. England not having a constitution is quite a bold statement too… I imagine the British Constitution Group might have something to say about that?

I reckon I’ll stick to the innocent until proven guilty common sense and that section 59 is entirely unlawful.

4

There is no English constitution.

I can’t really make it any plainer than that.

I don’t know the British Constitutional Group, but this is from Parliament:

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/

Nothing is beyond Parliament, Parliament is supreme and can make or unmake any law. This is how we differ from the United States and other countries with a constitution, their Government is bound by the Constitution and need to make amendments to the Constitution (Usually a difficult process) before they can make laws that breach their Constitution.

The United Kingdom Parliament has no such problem, they can make or unmake any law.

While it is true, if you want to be dull about it, that the Courts have recognised the importance of some laws, European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998 to express the view that these laws cannot be impliedly repealed because of their constitutional nature, the courts did not go as far as to say that these laws were beyond Parliament only that they must expressly repeal these laws if they wished to legislate contrary to them. Thus once against preserving Parliamentary supremacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Council

You can read about the case there, it is often called the weights and measures case due to the fact that it deals with metric measure use in the UK and the European Communities Act and Acts enacted came after it, it also states what I have said above…I decided to add outside sources after I had written it.

Statutes do not have a time limit, thus if no statute is created contrary to a part of the Bill of Rights, it will still be in force, however, if any law is created AFTER the creation of the Bill of Rights it will impliedly repeal any part of the Bill of Rights it is contradiction with.

While it is possible that the Courts MAY decide that the Bill of Rights is a constitutional Statute and therefore should not be impliedly repealed (unlikely to be honest) Parliament could simply have emergency statutes created over night to expressly repeal the provisions of the Bill of Rights to which the latest laws contradict.

5

And yes I know the Parliament page contradicts me, but that is because it needs to, because otherwise there is no underlying power to enact anything.

Partly written and wholly uncodified.

Bullsh*t is what they mean.

We are governed by tradition and Parliament.

For instance, nowhere does it state that the Queen must sign a law for it to come into force, yet it is a part of our system of Government, for no other reason than tradition.

If any Government decided not to do it tomorrow, that would be the end of the tradition. Trying to pass off tradition as a constitution is a joke.

6

Hi nick! :wink:

7

I would have thought that there would at least have to be a good reason for a Section 59 warning. Is revving your engine in a certain way a good enough reason for a formal warning? Who decides if it is? Is there a precedence that they can refer to for each individual case? What if your horn is too loud…would you get a warning for that…and is there a precedence for issuing a warning about it. There surely can’t be a precedence for everything? Or is there? :unsure:

8

There is always the Royal Assent Act.

9

Don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing that s59 is a good law, or is used correctly.

I am just pointing out that arguing that it is unconstitutional is pointless, as we don’t have a constitution, and relating to laws written 350 years ago isn’t going to work because the Courts that enforce them use a system by which they bypass them.

10

doh missed that :stuck_out_tongue:

11

I think its really interesting to consider this across the board of parking tickets, moving traffic offences and fixed penalty notices.
I wonder the crown thinks they get away with it, by giving you the ticket, which has the option of paying a fine or going to court?

There is lots of contradictory legislation with the public order act, and human rights… but I’m not that bored to learn and then argue them.

12

I have been that bored, did learn them and now enjoy arguing them.

Major problem with the Human Rights Act is this…it does not usurp Parliamentary Supremacy.

Another problem is that NONE of our Courts are bound by international law. So the European Court of Human Rights is not binding on our Courts, it is persuasive in the sense that IF the Courts can read legislation to work in conjunction with the HRA or the ECHR they will endeavour to do so.

However, if Parliament create a law that is expressly in contradiction to either of them, the courts will obey the law and ignore the HRA and ECHR.

13

I was always taught by the politics lecturer that a constitution is merely a way that a state is governed:

definition: 1. A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed

Whether it is written down in a codified bill of rights, or any other means, we still have a “system” by which we are governed.

A lot of it is old hack, customs and traditions, books and publications which are kept in parliament - often referred to when governmental practise is in a grey area, however - as I KNOW you know Kaos, a lot of the constitution comes from statute law, court judgements, and treaties [UK government and politics; Philip Lynch, Paul Fairclough, Peter Lynch] meaning that the way things are run can always be changed by passing new laws, and this becomes the constitution from there on in. indeed, the lack of a written bill of rights or constitution means that the politicians can do what they want by just making new laws, however, it’s not such a bad thing. there’s loads of good things about a fluid constitution, but I’m just posting to point out that we DO have a constitution :smiley:

not trying to cause offence or belittle or be arrogant/smug, i appreciate why it may come across this way.

all the best

Chris

14

I would argue that is not a complete definition of a Constitution, a Constitution is a limitation to the power of Government. Look at most Constitutions around the world and they state what the Government cannot legislate on, the most notable of course being the US, no cruel or unusual treatment, no removal of the right to bear arms etc.

We have no such limiting power. A Constitution isn’t just a framework by which a Governmental system works, although that, as in the US example, can be a part of a Constitution. The fundamental essence of a Constitution is a document that limits the power of Government and there are no limitations to the UK Government’s power.

Hence we don’t have a Constitution.

15

Hello mate!!! how tricks? It’s been a while

:o)

16

This is why it’s unlawful. the copper (suposedly) gets to be witness, judge and executioner straight away no questions asked. It’s bullshit, imoral, unlawful, bad Karma and down right nawty… tisk tisks

I’ve asked coppers to explain to me exactly what it was I was doing wrong… they wer unable to. coming up with “being anti social” at best but they couldn’t define that either… simply saying “well, it mean acting in an anti social behaviour”… rediculous. asking them ‘please help me not do this again and tell me exactly what you want me to not do’ didn’t produce any answers of any substance… it’a a power trip law, used and abused in great amount IMHO.

Take it nobody’s had one where their bikes stolen?

Speaking of which some cheeky fukkers broke in to my garage today whilst I was @ the wheelie school and stole a bike!!! (to be fair it probably wasn’t the old bill though)

17

Think we’re going to have to disagree on this one. The definition you gave is the definition of a limiting and codified constitution. That is, the written constitutions of places like the US cannot be changed. “The right to bear arms”, “cruel and unusual punishment”, et al. will never be changed because it has been a law that has been passed and now nobody can change it. The UK can pass similar laws, somebody has mentioned that the EU Human Rights, as well as the UDHR, have been combined into the HRA which has been passed in parliament and is now part of our constitution. Therefore I cannot cruelly and unusually punish my girlfriend for not making me a sandwich. shhhhhh!!!. Obviously that’s an extreme example. Our system allows for constitutional change. For example, in the U.S. many centuries ago, there was very real danger which required general public to bear arms - not only from animals and such in rural areas, however also - in the aftermath of “freedom” - from those who wanted to change back. Thus they were given the right to have guns. HOWEVER, is there still a need? Probably not. Which is where the U.S. constitution lacks compared to the U.K. constitution. Our laws have adapted to what is best for the country (subjectively, of course) - highlighting that we do indeed have a very really and important constitution. Every law passed in parliament is part of the constitution, every convention which we have kept going for years is part of the constitution, and every previous court judgement (case law - I’m sure you understand much more about this than me…) goes into the constitution, as we must remember that constitutions don’t only apply to the government, but also to everyone the government governs.

Chips.

18

The problem is with your language.

It is not unlawful. It may be unethical, it may be immoral, it may be fundamentally wrong, but it is not unlawful.

19

I cannot argue against him this time Nick! :smiley: He’s right :frowning:

Damn.

20

There’s no problem, we just have different opinions / viewpoints :wink:

This is my truth - I believe with all my heart that that if a man (regardless of what fancy costume he is wearing) tells me that (and I quote directly) “what I was doing MIGHT cause alarm or distress to members of the public” and then takes my motorbike away from me, charging me money to get it back… it is THEFT and EXTORSION… beccause at that point I had done nothing wrong. His opinion was that at some point in the future someone MIGHT be alarmed or distressed. People get alarmed and distressed from watching the news (there’s no ‘might’ about it), should the police steal everyones TV?

I’ve been threatened with theft and extortion even though (and the criminals in uniform confirmed these points with me):
I had permission to be there
it was private land
there had been no complaints
I had caused no harm to anyone or any property
I was not being too noisy
I was not riding reckelssly or dangerously.

Theft and extortion are unlawflu as far as I can tell.

It’s possible that we see things differently because I do not assume that a man has authority over me (and that everything he does is therefore lawful) because he wears a nice hat.

A policeman cannot lawfully kill a man who has done nothing wrong and is a threat to nobody (well, unless his names Jean Charles Menezess of course, but that’s another story)… so why should a policeman be lawfully allowed to steal?