HELP - Wrongly accused of using mobile phone whilst driving!

vaio

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

Link to the legislation for reference
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm

The way I read it, it doesn't say you have to be using the device to "perform an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data" at the time of the offence, only that it must be capable of doing so. So reading a text, playing a game or choosing a music track could/would count as 'using'.

Wonder if there is any case law?

I read it the opposite way, it’s “…..interactive communication devices” which are specifically mentioned as being banned from use, I’d say it’s axiomatic that “use” must include interactive communication.

No case law that I can find, OP if you have the odd £30k you don’t need maybe you can set a precedent

Money_Grabber13579

See here:

http://www.muckle-llp.com/N2293/Case-law-using-a-mobile-phone-while-driving.html

Not exactly case law but it gives the idea

vaio

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

See here:

http://www.muckle-llp.com/N2293/Case-law-using-a-mobile-phone-while-driving.html

Not exactly case law but it gives the idea

Yep, i saw that but it's only magistrates so a good solicitor could well get a different decision for the OP

Money_Grabber13579

I had a look on the Westlaw database but the only thing I could come up with was killing someone while using a mobile phone. Thought that was a bit over the top - like using a digger to plant your daffodils.

AHAR

MrSquare wrote: »

(not easy when you're 'allowed' 10% up on the speedo, making an allowable 33mph! :mad:)

I thought speedos were only allowed to overestimate your speed not underestimate it?
i.e. If the needle is pointing to 30, it means you're doing no more than 30 and can't be speeding

MrSquare_2

MaximumImpact wrote: »

Also absolute rubbish re your speeding...as Guidelines allow 10% + 2 on speeding so therefore you won't be prosesuted under 35 by a mobile camera.....

Yes, obviously I must be lying about my previous conviction. NOT - Otherwise I wouldn't be here! :T

And c l a i r e, the charge they are trying to do me for is using a mobile phone whilst driving.

Thanks all for your replies!

vaio

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

I had a look on the Westlaw database but the only thing I could come up with was killing someone while using a mobile phone. Thought that was a bit over the top - like using a digger to plant your daffodils.

Was that Browning where the court of appeal judgement said that "……..the use of a hand-held mobile phone by a driver whilst moving, a much too common feature of driving today, is self-evidently risky. But the risks of reading and composing, text messages appears to us of a wholly different order………”?

If so does that create a binding difference between “using” a mobile and “reading and composing, text messages”?

I’d come back to my previous argument that “using” involves “interactive transmission or receiving of data” and anything else (composing texts, playing games, music etc etc) doesn’t count as “using” but does obviously come under the “not in proper control” offence as does eating, adjusting stereo and anything else that affects control.

Money_Grabber13579

vaio wrote: »

Was that Browning where the court of appeal judgement said that "……..the use of a hand-held mobile phone by a driver whilst moving, a much too common feature of driving today, is self-evidently risky. But the risks of reading and composing, text messages appears to us of a wholly different order………”?

If so does that create a binding difference between “using” a mobile and “reading and composing, text messages”?

I’d come back to my previous argument that “using” involves “interactive transmission or receiving of data” and anything else (composing texts, playing games, music etc etc) doesn’t count as “using” but does obviously come under the “not in proper control” offence as does eating, adjusting stereo and anything else that affects control.

Yes, but that was back in 2001. The contents of the message were as follows:

“Oh, yes, a real scorcher. Well, just leaving Benfleet for West Thurrock. Job number 7 of 11. ****. Call you back.” The first part was deemed to have been composed before the journey started, while the "****. Call you back" was said to have been written after the crash. The whole message was transmitted after the crash. However, even though the message might not have been composed during the journey, the problem was that he was probably going to plan to add more words had the accident not occurred.

So it would seem that you don't even have to write the text message, as long as the intention to do so is there.

"The use of a mobile phone to read and to compose text messages while driving is, a highly perilous activity. Even the use of a handheld mobile phone by a driver whilst moving, a much too common feature of driving today, is self-evidently risky." This paragraph seems to distinguish between sending messages and just the general use, although whether or not the general use is a punishable offence is not clear to me.

Inactive

MrSquare wrote: »

• I was not using the phone, simply holding it.
• The officer checked all communication logs, and did not find any evidence to say I was using the phone.
• In the officers statement, it states the window was slightly 'ajar' however as I have tinted windows I find it hard to believe he saw me pressing buttons as he claims.
• I have a witness that will be attending court with me to back up my statement that I was not using the phone.
• I am a University student with a totally clean criminal record.
• I heavily rely on my car so for work purposes and my rural residency.

Exactly why were you " holding the phone "? I am sure you will be asked this.

If your witness is your mate that was with you in the car, then he will not be deemed as an independant witness, any evidence he gives will be seen in that light.

Le73Uq86Uv

Deleted post