Help wrongly accused of using mobile phone whilst driving

chilli_dog

Anyone no what happened when it went to court?

SallyUK

Yes please!

Sally

knighty1

yes ,but mine didnt goas far as court.but was a picture....i had actually turned my phone off and left it at home which isnt me ....but anyway...was driving down hte road andi have a habit playing with my hair.so i was busy twirling as normal and the police wee exiting a side street on my right going to their left..then as i got to bottom of road saw them behind me ,anyway they pulled me and asked me into their car..i got the riot act and new laws.i explained i didnt have a phone with me, and i said so,..and so the officer had said i would have to go to court and i asked why if i didnt have one with me ,and i could prove it by taking him home and switching my phone on,and then i said well phone o2 and ask them when i las called anyone.and at this point he started getting a little hot under collar...anyway i got out the car half hour later "complaining " i wasnt getting my day in court and please please could i go and prove how very wrong arrogant and stupid he was....but i never got my day unfortunatley.......

madmax2

Hi everyone

Just to update you all. My partner received a recorded delivery letter from the Crown Prosecution Service 2 days before the court hearing stating that the case had been "discontinued because there is not evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction".

I would advice anyone else in a similar situation to fight it as well. My partner could have just paid £30.00 (back in Oct 2006) and we could have got on with our lives and forgot about it but if your innocent why should you. I'd be interested to know how matthewmps has got on and anyone else in a similar situation. If there is no evidence as in my partner's case how can they pursue it?

Thanks for everyone's advice it was vey much appreciated.

grayme-m

madmax2 wrote: »

Hi everyone

Just to update you all. My partner received a recorded delivery letter from the Crown Prosecution Service 2 days before the court hearing stating that the case had been "discontinued because there is not evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction".

I would advice anyone else in a similar situation to fight it as well. My partner could have just paid £30.00 (back in Oct 2006) and we could have got on with our lives and forgot about it but if your innocent why should you. I'd be interested to know how matthewmps has got on and anyone else in a similar situation. If there is no evidence as in my partner's case how can they pursue it?

Thanks for everyone's advice it was vey much appreciated.

Thanks for the update.

How do you feel about it, it seems like a bit of a double edged sword, on one hand you haven't got the worry, but similarly you didn't get chance to show them up for the idiots they are?

I could be in a similar position with a legal matter at work, it seems the other side may not bother to take things further after all the threats and documentation of initial court proceedings; I don't really want to go to court but would still miss not showing them up for the frauds they are!

madmax2

Hi grayme-m

Yes your right - my partner was actually looking forward to the court hearing as he was confident that he would win. He had his phone bill from 3 Network and there was a few discrepancies in the police officer's statement -the main one being the officer stating his phone was black when in fact it is silver.

We are in the process of applying for costs due to all the inconvenience and stress caused over a 7 month period.

kev7n84

I'm glad justice prevailed, Its a shame though that this bacame a police bashing thread.

Whilst your husband was telling the truth, lets not forget there's plenty of people out there that will plead their innocence, when they were in fact guilty to get out of a fine and now points.

This is why we have to trust the police, im sure they don't go out of there way to accuse innocent people using there phone's when driving, its not like there on commision. Asd stated previously it would be absurd for their tobe hard eidence every time a crime is committed. If a policeman witnesses a fatal stabbing, recognises the killer, doesn;t cath him there and then, but doesn't have a handy camcorder too hand, should the killer get off?

As for the many comments about speed camera's, its simple, don't break the law and you wont get caught. Break the law, get caught, face the consequnce, dont go monaing about it. If people didnt break the speed limits there would be no camera's, unfortunately people do, they believe they have a right to, but let them try explaining that to a childs parents after you couldn't break in time and killed them.

But i suppose life would be better with no speed camera's, no police (cus we can't trust them can we?!).. lets hope that day comes soon so the people on this thread can show us all how right they were, and how much safer britain is without those pesky coppers.

gromituk

madmax2 wrote: »

there was a few discrepancies in the police officer's statement -the main one being the officer stating his phone was black when in fact it is silver.

I thought that had already been covered - just because you have a silver phone doesn't mean you can't also have a black phone.

We are in the process of applying for costs due to all the inconvenience and stress caused over a 7 month period.

Best of luck - keep us informed!

gromituk

kev7n84 wrote: »

This is why we have to trust the police

You've obviously never had a scrape with them, and witnessed how they close ranks when you try to go even as far as getting the officer responsible to apologise. It is as naive to say that you must always trust the police as it is to say that you must never trust them. Police are human like everyone else.

Hadrian

If the police officer simply can say in court "I saw him (her) using a mobile...." then surely the defendant can get a 'draw' by saying "I wasn't". In order to get a prosecution the officer must PROOVE (remember the defendant could have 2 phones one not his) a phone was being used. How they can do this without at the time taking the details of the phone EG makers numbers etc. escapes me. If the driver says "I haven't got a phone on me" have the police the authority to search the person stopped? If not it's his word against the driver. But as we all know the police's word will always be taken against the defendants.