Jump to content

Chewie

Recommended Posts

Yes, presumably s19 PACE is the direction?

This was the question put to our force sols, who said NO to S19 PACE. Never did a reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disproportionate to do so? Seize a whole car when a photograph would suffice?

 

"Your worships, I should like to offer into evidence exhibit IJ/1, Morris Marina, mustard yellow"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our force generally only allow you to seize a vehicle under S165 once you've got approval from a traffic officer - they want to make sure that the correct checks have been made before the vehicle is seized and impounded to save any unnecessary complications or refunds.  It still happens, though - the last seizure I made ended up getting refunded, thanks to the duffer at the insurance company stating that the fella I'd stopped definitely wasn't insured (he was) to drive other vehicles (he was riding his dad's moped, and didn't think he was insured either!)

Is this for specials or regs Chewie? I think in my force of traffic were called every time we did a 165 they would have a few choice words for us. On our 165 pads we have a list of the checks we are required to do before seizure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is already fairly good and clear legislation for the roadside testing of vehicles by appropriately trained and authorised officers/staff. If a force does not have enough people trained then that is clearly an issue for them, but seizing a vehicle under S19 of PACE to allow a vehicle examiner to carry out an examination at another point in time is not right.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a power to seize evidence in the street at common law: Cowan vs MPS 1999, which might be why forces feel reluctant to use S19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is I suppose is:

Are forces acting unlawfully when officers seize vehicles with dangerous defects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is I suppose is:

Are forces acting unlawfully when officers seize vehicles with dangerous defects?

 

Almost certainly not.

 

You could clearly have a S2 RTA offence (punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment) so seizing the vehicle for a mechanical examination is clearly a viable LOE provided that it would otherwise possibly be lost, concealed, destroyed etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this for specials or regs Chewie? I think in my force of traffic were called every time we did a 165 they would have a few choice words for us. On our 165 pads we have a list of the checks we are required to do before seizure.

 

As far as I'm aware it's both... having said that, there are certain circumstances where the 165 can effectively be "automatically authorised" (for want of a better phrase), such as an admission of no insurance, the insurance company confirming no insurance, etc... but as I pointed out, in my post, even with the necessary due diligence checks, it's still possible to end up seizing a vehicle that is actually insured to be used by the person concerned!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless it's a vehicle seizure.  We can sniff out a "no insurance" at 50 paces...  :D

 

Indeed we can, well a S.165 anyway...

 

Whilst conducting tasking patrols at the services the other day and refuelling myself with a gingerbread latte, I saw a vehicle pull onto the forecourt and whilst the driver was filling the tyres with air  ( :clapping:  for maintenance) I decided to run it through my MDT. AIO but keeper from S. London and insured from Kent... which I thought was a bit odd. So walk over to to check drivers docs. According to the driver, he's been driving for 10 years apparently, but according to DVLA, as a non-licence holder (but has a ghost licence with 6 pts already!)

 

...resulting in a nice S.165 seizure and a DRN to report back on my tasking returns!  :yahoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Why are traffic referred to as rats? Do they 'eat their own kind' so to speak? (Rightfully so if they're breaking the law).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are traffic referred to as rats? Do they 'eat their own kind' so to speak? (Rightfully so if they're breaking the law).

A black rat is one of the few that will eat it's own young, as traffic do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are traffic referred to as rats? Do they 'eat their own kind' so to speak? (Rightfully so if they're breaking the law).

depending on how you like your folklore it eminated from the MET outwards, trafpols wore black jackets (none of that hi-viz stuff) on the bikes and cars, they scurried around the back alleys and sneaked up on unsuspecting motorists  and frequented the dark dank tunnels across London with the roll on that they dealt with other officers without favour so they "feasted" on their own.  It seems to have evolved to all trafpols but thats not a bad thing.   

Edited by BlueBob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I have been doing some reading about seizure of a vehicle subject to a prohibition. Under Road Safety (Immobilisation, Removal & Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 2009 it states:

Where the driving of a vehicle has been prohibited under section 69 Road Traffic Act 1988 an authorised person, or person acting under his direction may immobilise, remove and subsequently dispose of the vehicle in accordance with the regulations.

At the moment I am struggling to find the power to seize a vehicle to carry out the test as section 67 RTA 1988 allows the owner to defer the test, but an examiner may carry out the test if in their opinion, the vehicle appears so defective it shall not proceed. There is no power to detain the vehicle and the test must be carried out forthwith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a power to direct that the vehicle goes to the testing station immediately isn't there for examination? Assuming the driver walked off then you could argue that it's an abandoned vehicle/obstruction and recover/dispose of under that power. Alternatively you could argue that a corollary of the power to direct that the vehicle is tested is to take it there yourself if the driver walks off and have it examined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Police Community is a forum that is supported financially through advertisements. It is a breach of our standard use policy to use Adblock plugins/software on our site. 

In order to continue using our site you will need to disable Adblock across our site. Alternatively you can purchase a membership package from our online store to remove adverts as part of the membership subscription. 

https://police.community/remove-adverts/

Thank you for your support.

I have disabled Adblock