PCN using mobile while driving, but not guilty

scheming_gypsy

HO87 wrote: »

There is always the possibility that he adamantly believes what he saw and is not therefore lying. As suggested in my post, the phone does not need to be used to send or receive a call/text but simply an interactive purpose. This could amount to listening - via a speaker, for example - to music or ringtones etc you have saved on it; setting up a voice command - the list could be rather long.

.

No sure whether the law has changed since, but you can / could use a phone depending on the purpose http://www.metro.co.uk/news/753746-jimmy-carr-cleared-of-mobile-charge

Coupon-mad

Is it worth turning up in person at the Police Station and explaining what happened to see if there is any way they can quash it now as it was plainly a mistake? I am thinking if they already know that copper's work is a bit hit and miss they may believe you. I think you'd need to speak to a sergeant and not the first person on the desk, who may be a civilian.

HO87

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

Although he will have to turn up at court to give evidence (i believe). So if he's going off shakey evidence that he was parked in a side street and only guessed that you were using the phone.... you can gamble on the odds of him turning up to give evidence.

He would only be required to give evidence in person if the OP requires his attendance otherwise his evidence would be read in and would thus be accepted "as is". If required to attend an officer would leave himself open to disciplinary proceedings if he failed to appear. The OP could not challenge the officer's evidence without him giving it in person and it would only be at that point that his credibility could be judged. A tough call.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

No sure whether the law has changed since, but you can / could use a phone depending on the purpose http://www.metro.co.uk/news/753746-jimmy-carr-cleared-of-mobile-charge

Mr Carr had the unequalled benefit of an extremely expensive lawyer acting for him and the court accepted the argument that using the dictaphone function of his phone was not an interactive purpose. Given that the OP states that he was not using the phone at all - and presumably made this point at the time he was stopped - then this is not a defence he could avail himself of. Point taken though.

Trebor16

If the OP decides to refuse the offer of the fixed penalty then the case could go to court with the OP being summonsed to appear. If the OP then pleads not guilty the officer would be required to attend and give evidence in person. It will come down to the officer v OP as it appears there are no other witnesses available.

Hadeon

.....and the OP would/should be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt of course.

kizkiz

I quite often see people driving who appear to be on the phone. A lot of people have one hand against the side of their head, buton watching for longer, no phone
I would personally never issue a ticket for this unless i was certain, and lets face it, it's not hard to find someone who really is doing it!
Of course, that's just me, and every police officer is different.
The problem is you proving it, as it will be your word against his.
You've had some good advice from HO87
You have to request court, that is your appeal process.
Going into the station, writing letters etc will get you nowhere
Showing a call log proves nothing. The offence is "using a mobile phone", not "making a call on a mobile phone"
Unless you can find either cctv or a witness to show you were not using the phone it's going to be very hard to win

TrickyWicky

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Is it worth turning up in person at the Police Station and explaining what happened to see if there is any way they can quash it now as it was plainly a mistake?

I very much doubt that approach will have any impact at all.

IMO the op is best off obtaining phone records from the phone company and going to court. IF the plod was parked in a side street then scratching the side of your head can look like holding your phone. You only need to see someones arm and hand near the side of their head and you automatically think its a phone.

RichS_2

kizkiz wrote: »

Showing a call log proves nothing. The offence is "using a mobile phone", not "making a call on a mobile phone"
Unless you can find either cctv or a witness to show you were not using the phone it's going to be very hard to win

Surely the burden of proof is on the officer to prove guilt, not me proving my innocence - so surely he needs the cctv not me and if he has it the film will show in my favour.

Showing the clean call log doesn't prove it wasn't in use, but alongside the dubious position of his viewpoint (I'll go take photos) and 26 years of spotless driving - and the fact that there was no phone in my hand - I have to appeal. He watched me take it from my coat!!

RichS_2

HO87 wrote: »

There is always the possibility that he adamantly believes what he saw and is not therefore lying.

Much as it will go against the grain, I'm sure, you might want to think about what this could cost you. You would need to make the decision quickly given that you have to surrender you licence shortly, if you are going to pay the EFPN.

Perhaps he does believe his own eyes and therefore believes he is not lying. But beliefs aren't facts and he was quick enough to call me a liar to my face. And he insisted that I should confess (!?!)

I think he issued the ticket due to clash of personalities, more than believing an offence was committed.

Sirdan

RichS wrote: »

Perhaps he does believe his own eyes and therefore believes he is not lying. But beliefs aren't facts and he was quick enough to call me a liar to my face. And he insisted that I should confess (!?!)

Sadly beliefs become facts in court unless they are properly challenged (IMO)