Originally Posted by
g10ens
If the incident was taken to court and the evidence was presented to a judge then the verdict would be not guilty, that is what i have an issue with.
The british justice system is supposed to be about a fair trial and a decision should be made by somebody who has studied and trained to become qualified to make that decision. If the police were to be driving round in one of their unmarked cars with video filming equipment and followed a motorcyclist "performing a prolonged wheelie" then i am sure they would take the offender through the court system as they know a conviction would be guaranteed, these section 59's are just something that is issued based on the opinion of a police officer when he knows that the correct and respected legal procedures of going through a court of law would fail to get a conviction.
So as there is no way of appealing a Section 59, in theory, a police officer does not need to have any evidence at all as they don't need to be able to prove their reason for issuing the Section 59.
So they can give you one just because they want to or 'may' have seen you done something?
It seems like the power to issue a Section 59 can be abused by police officers very easily.