All posts in the topic Opposing the Police Tactic of Arresting the Minibus (Short link)
Summary
- There are 4 posts — by 2 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Tony greenstein at May 31 19:12 UTC
Three times in the past 4 years various Police forces have seized the
Unemployed Centre's minibus on one pretext or another. The real reason has of
course been that being unable (yet) to arrest someone merely for going on a
demonstration (it's coming - don't worry!) they arrest the bus instead.
In Birmingham they did this at the demonstration against Caterkillar, early
this year the same happened at a demonstration outside Agrexco-Carmel in Hayes,
Middlesex which distributes Israeli and West Bank produce. A women's health
collective which borrowed our van was also stopped and had the bus impounded in
Leeds last year.
Of course the Met in particular, having been given powers under New Labour's
SOCPA to prevent any demonstration within a mile of Parliament would like to
extend that to all demonstrations. Failing which they look for any and every
excuse.
The excuse they have seized on is the absurdity whereby anyone with a driving
license before 1st January 2007 needs a D1 license to drive a minibus with more
than 8 seats. Something like a Midas Test. However, looking at the DVLA's own
web site, it appears that the Police have been misinterpreting their own
legislation, because there is a specific allowance for someone who is over 21,
with a driving license for 2 years who is not driving for profit etc.
We have therefore issued proceedings against the Metropolitan Police for
impounding our vehicle in February at Agrexco and rather than allow someone
with the right license to drive it away, decided instead to take it to the Met
Car pound where you have to pay 105 plus 12 per day. Because there was a
massive queue, only 2 booths operating, on this occasion they couldn't even
process credit cards, no toilets etc., we had to come back the next day
incurring yet further charges because the Met likes to make it as difficult as
possible for people.
It would be interesting if people know of other instances where the Police
attack the transport conveying demonstrations in order to harass and prevent
lawful demonstrations against the producers of arms and illegal settlement
produce.
Tony Greenstein
You've not quite stated the legal position on minibus driving correctly,
Tony.
The driving licence situation is that anyone who is driving a minibus needs
a category D1 entitlement or must meet the criteria that gives them
exemption from the D1 requirement.
If you passed your car test before 1 January 1997 (not 2007) you
automatically have a D1 entitlement. If you passed your test after 1997,
you don't - and a second test is needed before you can drive a minibus,
UNLESS certain criteria apply. These are:-
You may drive a minibus with up to 16 passenger seats provided:
(i) you drive on behalf of a non commercial body for social purposes but not
for hire or reward (unless operating under a permit);
(ii) you are aged 21 or over;
(iii) you have held a car (category B) licence for at least 2 years;
(iv) you are providing your service on a voluntary basis; and
(v) the minibus maximum weight is not more than 3.5 tonnes excluding any
specialist equipment for the carriage of disabled passengers.
The "not for hire and reward" requirement in (i) is not going to be met if
there has been any payment made by or on behalf of the passengers travelling
in the vehicle. If a payment has been made, the vehicle needs to display a
permit issued under Section 19 of the 1985 Transport Act (available from the
Traffic Commissioner's Office).
As a practical rule of thumb, I would expect most enforcement officers
(police or VOSA) would work on the principle that a minibus displaying a
S.19 permit is legal and one that doesn't could easily be illegal. In legal
terms, the MiDAS test is irrelevant - since MiDAS is a voluntary scheme
aimed at improving the standard of minibus driving, but with no formal basis
in law.
Ed Bassford
Ed,
Yes I was simplifying the position somewhat but the position remains the
same. What I don't accept is what is effectively a presumption of guilt, where
you say 'As a practical rule of thumb, I would expect most enforcement officers
(police or VOSA) would work on the principle that a minibus displaying a S.19
permit is legal and one that doesn't could easily be illegal.'
There is no basis for such a presumption. On the contrary innocence until
proven guilty should be the rule but the reality is that people going to a
demonstration are indeed treated as guilty until proved innocent.
You are right about the 5 conditions, which I precised ('etc.'). But in the
case of our minibus all these conditions were met and more to the point there
was actually another driver with a qualifying license anyway.
Tony
Ed Bassford <ed-bassford@btconnect.com> wrote:
You've not quite stated the legal position on minibus driving correctly,
Tony.
The driving licence situation is that anyone who is driving a minibus needs
a category D1 entitlement or must meet the criteria that gives them
exemption from the D1 requirement.
If you passed your car test before 1 January 1997 (not 2007) you
automatically have a D1 entitlement. If you passed your test after 1997,
you don't - and a second test is needed before you can drive a minibus,
UNLESS certain criteria apply. These are:-
You may drive a minibus with up to 16 passenger seats provided:
(i) you drive on behalf of a non commercial body for social purposes but not
for hire or reward (unless operating under a permit);
(ii) you are aged 21 or over;
(iii) you have held a car (category B) licence for at least 2 years;
(iv) you are providing your service on a voluntary basis; and
(v) the minibus maximum weight is not more than 3.5 tonnes excluding any
specialist equipment for the carriage of disabled passengers.
The "not for hire and reward" requirement in (i) is not going to be met if
there has been any payment made by or on behalf of the passengers travelling
in the vehicle. If a payment has been made, the vehicle needs to display a
permit issued under Section 19 of the 1985 Transport Act (available from the
Traffic Commissioner's Office).
As a practical rule of thumb, I would expect most enforcement officers
(police or VOSA) would work on the principle that a minibus displaying a
S.19 permit is legal and one that doesn't could easily be illegal. In legal
terms, the MiDAS test is irrelevant - since MiDAS is a voluntary scheme
aimed at improving the standard of minibus driving, but with no formal basis
in law.
Ed Bassford
Hi Andy, yes I did know of the case, which of course was similar to what the Police did with Miners' pickets 20 years ago, but thanks for the links which I'll explore! Tony Andy Smith <andy@zambezi.org.uk> wrote: 2008/5/30 tony greenstein : > It would be interesting if people know of other instances where the Police attack the transport conveying demonstrations in order to harass and prevent lawful demonstrations against the producers of arms and illegal settlement produce. Hi Tony, Maybe you're already aware of this case, it was quite widely publicised in the anti-war movement at the time. In 2003 police stopped some coaches carrying people from London to a demonstration at RAF Fairford and searched the coaches, supposedly for weapons. After nothing was found and no arrests were made, the coaches were escorted back to London, stopping the passengers from attending the demonstration. There is more info about the case and subsequent court cases at http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk/ Best wishes,