NIP for using handheld whilst driving - Mobile phone log says I didn't

Spicy_McHaggis

Cornucopia wrote: »

On the basis of the OP's account that would be a lie.

Let's hope he didn't see the screen illuminated when it wasn't being used then.

AdrianC

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

To be clear, I understand that phone use records only show calls and texts. I also understand that some phones can be used for other purposes.

However I don't think this renders the submission of phone records useless.

It renders them 100% irrelevant.

Mr_Incredible

photome wrote: »

they were lining the pavement but you didnt see them

something doesnt add up

There were two uniformed police, and possibly two plain clothed. Further down, way down there was a marked car, parked with regular parked cars down the lay by. I was driving in a contested two lane carriageway, to the left of which was continual line of parked cars where disabled and short term loading spaces were made. This is because it was a retail strip. I was in the right of the two lanes and looking at the road ahead. I didn't see him coming he came accross one lane (empty) and started banging on my back passenger window. No I hadn't seen him.

Mr_Incredible

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Let's hope he didn't see the screen illuminated when it wasn't being used then.

He couldn't have, I never pressed any buttons.

Cornucopia

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Let's hope he didn't see the screen illuminated when it wasn't being used then.

Still not proof.

To be clear, and IMHO, the Policeman needed to see (not assume) either: speaking or listening, typing, or at a stretch reading the phone.

Mr_Incredible

AdrianC wrote: »

It renders them 100% irrelevant.

Lol you don't give up

If the most / any part of people's use of a phone is to call, receive or text, it's not 100% irrelevant to produce a document which proves it wasn't being used for that purpose

Mr_Incredible

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

As with his his speeding offence he won't accept anything. There's really no point in any further speculation until he enters a not guilty plea and gets his evidence pack containing police officers statements showing the use.

Spicy McHaggis,

I have listened to all the points made with interest. They have been helpful and we seem to be making good headway. Some comments are becoming quite narrow and that is simply because we have explored the more general points. Where there opinions I am listening to both sides.

You seem to have a biased view and I would there for ask that if you don't want to contribute to a constructive factual discussion, there may be other thread more worthy of you attention. Not ones posted by me

For your information, I have zero points on my driving license at this time and over five years no claims.

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

It renders them 100% irrelevant.

Not entirely.

The records can show that he wasn't using it for any telecommunication purpose and, as with Jimmy Carr, whether other "uses" are relevant under the Act is still open to interpretation.

So they would leave a fair summary of the prosecution case as:

"He was seen holding it and may (or may not, we can't offer any evidence either way) have been using it for a purpose that may (or may not) be covered by the offence with which he's charged"

Not exactly the hardest position to raise reasonable doubt against!

Mr_Incredible

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Not entirely.

The records can show that he wasn't using it for any telecommunication purpose and, as with Jimmy Carr, whether other "uses" are relevant under the Act is still open to interpretation.

So they would leave a fair summary of the prosecution case as:

"He was seen holding it and may (or may not, we can't offer any evidence either way) have been using it for a purpose that may (or may not) be covered by the offence with which he's charged"

Not exactly the hardest position to raise reasonable doubt against!

Thanks joe that's really helpful, in terms of just considering things

AdrianC

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

Lol you don't give up

No, reality doesn't.

If the most / any part of people's use of a phone is to call, receive or text, it's not 100% irrelevant to produce a document which proves it wasn't being used for that purpose

Looking something up in the address book? Reading a text message? Writing a text message? None of those would show up on a network usage statement. And that's before considering any of the multiplicity of uses of a smart phone that don't involve data transmission/reception.