Help wrongly accused of using mobile phone whilst driving

stiffnuts69

wow the amount of bull on this thread is unbelievable.

Some of you are very quick to give credence to 2 newbies with less than 10 posts between them.

Now Im not saying the police are angels but some of the PC's I know cant be bothered to scratch their behind let alone issue an FPN for someone touching their ear.

ummmmm

MORPH3US

On the flip side, when I used to work in a bar, one of the regulars came in and told me how he was on the way back from the dentist (had a filling) and was speaking to his gf on a handheld mobile phone.

Police man pulled him over and first asked his name... this bloke mumbles his name (barely comprehensible) and then says to the police man "Sorry if i'm talking funny, i've just had a filling and my mouth is still numb" *gives his jaw a rub*

The police man looks at him and says "Oh... I'm really sorry. The reason I pulled you over was I thought you were using a mobile, but you were rubbing your jaw"...

The bloke says to him "err.. yeah thats right, I was rubbing my jaw. I'd never use a phone while driving officer..."

Officer apologises again and lets him get on his way.....!!

OP, keep us updated on the outcome, I really hope you get justice. In the same situation, even though I would have wanted to fight, I would have just paid the £30 to save future additional costs...

M

madmax2

Thanks again for everyone's advice and comments.

Its intersting to hear matthewmps is in exactly the same positin as my partner. Again from what he says the police officer refused to check his call logs - I wonder why - is it because he knows that he would be proven wrong!!

We have taken further advice from a solicitor who has advised us that if we are pleading not guilty to request the officer to be present as a witness so his statement can be questioned. Unfortunately with motor criminal offences such as these you can't get legal aid and the costs of hiring a solicitor to represent you in court would be quite high approx £500.00 or even higher so I was told. The solicitor we spoke to was quite helpful and emphasised the way to tackle it is by saying things like "I was most definitely not using my mobile phone. The officer is mistaken on this occassion" He also said to focus on your good character i.e. law abiding member of the public who is fully aware of the dangers/implications of using a mobile phone etc. He said it could also be helpful to get a letter from someone like a Doctor, Priest, Employer or someone regarded highly in the community which states that you are trustworthy and have no convictions etc. He didn't say it would be easy as at the end of the day its the officer's word against my partners. However, I'm that annoyed and fed up about the whole situation that we are prepared to take it to court and hope that the court will see that my partner is innocent. The solicitor also advised me to pursue the mobile phone company for the incoming call log as he said they DO have access to them. Perhaps if my partner threatens to end his contract and take his business elsewhere that might persuade them!

matthewmps can you keep me updated as I would be keen to see how your case turns out. Are you going to plead not guilty?

If anyone else has any more advice/comments it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

ivavoucher

I have no idea why you are so persistent in this trolling abuse of other members, nor do I care, so please do not subject any of us to your virulently patronising lecture about politeness.


Here here.

SenorGroucho

You can find invaluable advice on most things relating to fighting motoring offences here:
http://www.pepipoo.com/
Well worth a look.

madmax2

stiffnuts69 wrote: »

wow the amount of bull on this thread is unbelievable.

Some of you are very quick to give credence to 2 newbies with less than 10 posts between them.

Now Im not saying the police are angels but some of the PC's I know cant be bothered to scratch their behind let alone issue an FPN for someone touching their ear.

ummmmm

stiffnuts69 can you please clarify what you mean by "bull"? I think it is highly irrelevant how many posts people have on and whether they are "newbies" as you put it.

---lee---

OP, good luck to your partner.

This sort of situation can be avoided by keeping your mobile phone in the boot – that’s what I always do. That way, I’m never tempted to use it.

peterbaker

OP, yes good luck.

I think the stories related in this thread simply show that the the police havent a clue how to police new laws like this. In the end, someone says "we aren't getting enough cases brought to justice" and the Rules of Engagement are drawn up in amateur fashion, probably at some ACPO meeting, with a view to rectifying it. As has been pointed out, most people lump it and accept the points/pay the fine. For those who fancy their chances in court, the magistrates then do their bit (they haven't a clue what is reasonable or not when it comes to technical things) and we end up with innocent people getting convicted, and guilty people with expensive barristers getting away with all sorts.

I represented myself in court and contested a hand held speed gun that supposedly picked me out at 500 metres from a group of vehicles.

The policeman said he had been told the laser was a pencil beam and he had aimed at my number plate and hit it.

I contested that. It is around 1.5 metres wide at 500 metres (almost as wide as the car), and a policeman holding it would have to be extremely careful not to get a reflection from another vehicle. However, nice chap that he was, the policeman said he had aimed at my number plate as trained and that's what he thought he hit! He simply didn't know if I with my physics degree and a bit of internet research was correct that all laser beams diverge. I also explained that as a rifleman I would have to be extremely skilled to hit a car number plate at 500m even if I was lying prone. The policeman can apparently do it with a stumpy little gun pointing out of the window of his police car. The magistrates would not accept my assertions because I was not qualified as an expert. Instead I was given the anecdote that the magistrates themselves had tried the speedguns and they worked.

I also established by cross-examination that the policeman was using his police radio telephone equipment in very close proximity to the speedgun, but again my assertion that this is known to cause interference and is in fact contra to ACPO guidelines was ignored.

The "reasonable doubt" is in the hands of the magistrates and they are the ones who actually practice no such judgements unless they are backed into a tight corner by a clever defence barrister.

In the absence of cold logic very skillfully delivered by a respected barrister, if the magistrates want to convict you they will.

tamora

tillson wrote: »

I am going to leave it here.

I wish you would :rolleyes:

Hope all goes well madmax2, more motorists should fight back and stick it to the 'man' :cool:

hammodt

Don't forget to tell us the outcome

David