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

londonTiger

its your word against his. If you're confident you didn't turn the screen on to glance at time/any messages then go for it. A dashcam which records inside the cabin as well as in front would come to its own here. But I suspect the police saw the phone because the screen was lit - it would be pretty hard to make out the phone from afar with the screen being off.

It's a crime to use the phone, that includes, checking the time, checking the home screen for your feed (android), not just using the phone to call.

Making calls is just one way of many ways of "using" the phone. the o2 statement will not do anything. It wont mention anythig if you received calls, only outbound calls.

If you wanted still protest this, the best way would be to hire a smartphone foresic analyst expert witness who can trawl through the usage log of the phone and find out what happened exactly in the point in time when you were alleged to have used your phone while driving. That's IF the phone keeps that record at all.

I'm afraid the solicitor is talking bull - they just want your money. Your defence is weak. In a your word against mine situation against police, the judge will always take the police side unless you can demonstrate flaws in the police's argument to break it apart.

DUTR

londonTiger wrote: »

its your word against his. If you're confident you didn't turn the screen on to glance at time/any messages then go for it. A dashcam which records inside the cabin as well as in front would come to its own here. But I suspect the police saw the phone because the screen was lit - it would be pretty hard to make out the phone from afar with the screen being off.

It's a crime to use the phone, that includes, checking the time, checking the home screen for your feed (android), not just using the phone to call.

Making calls is just one way of many ways of "using" the phone. the o2 statement will not do anything. It wont mention anythig if you received calls, only outbound calls.

I'm afraid the solicitor is talking bull - they just want your money. Your defence is weak. In a your word against mine situation against police, the judge will always take the police side unless you can demonstrate flaws in the police's argument to break it apart.

That is not always the case, I have friends who are JP, sometimes they may spill a story, and it's not always in the Police favour , however there are often 3 on the bench and if at least 2 of them favour one side then that's the way the judgement may go.
Looking at the events an officer is not going to randomly approach a vehicle without any good cause (we have all seen people on their phones on various roads) .

Spicy_McHaggis

londonTiger wrote: »

its your word against his. If you're confident you didn't turn the screen on to glance at time/any messages then go for it. A dashcam which records inside the cabin as well as in front would come to its own here. But I suspect the police saw the phone because the screen was lit - it would be pretty hard to make out the phone from afar with the screen being off.

It's a crime to use the phone, that includes, checking the time, checking the home screen for your feed (android), not just using the phone to call.

Making calls is just one way of many ways of "using" the phone. the o2 statement will not do anything. It wont mention anythig if you received calls, only outbound calls.

If you wanted still protest this, the best way would be to hire a smartphone foresic analyst expert witness who can trawl through the usage log of the phone and find out what happened exactly in the point in time when you were alleged to have used your phone while driving. That's IF the phone keeps that record at all.

I'm afraid the solicitor is talking bull - they just want your money. Your defence is weak. In a your word against mine situation against police, the judge will always take the police side unless you can demonstrate flaws in the police's argument to break it apart.

Isn't the clue in the name. I always thought there role was to judge the evidence presented and whether the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

How wrong was I?

Spicy_McHaggis

DUTR wrote: »

That is not always the case, I have friends who are JP, sometimes they may spill a story, and it's not always in the Police favour , however there are often 3 on the bench and if at least 2 of them favour one side then that's the way the judgement may go.
Looking at the events an officer is not going to randomly approach a vehicle without any good cause (we have all seen people on their phones on various roads) .

More commonly one a District Judge.

jellie

It's much easier for women, we have handbags to put our phones in.

TrickyWicky

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

I have alot of respect for the police I think they have a hard job weighed down by beurocracy and get paid peanuts

£25k starting isn't peanuts to most of us. As for respecting the police I'd like to make it clear that I also respect them however I think traffic police are dirt if i'm completely honest. I've had two run-ins with them over the years. Once where a neighbour had clearly tried to fit me up and got me followed by them and once when another arrogant so and so tried to have me for no insurance - despite having it. Traffic plods are trained to assume that every motorist is guilty of something and they treat every motorist as an arrest waiting to happen IMO.

As for this:

DUTR wrote: »

I hope you come back to the thread with a verdict, once the incident has run by the seargant and cps advisors, then there is a very high chance the charge will be upheld.

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

I read that as you hope the charge will be upheld? Why?

He wasn't saying he hopes the charge is upheld - notice the comma. He was simply saying he hopes you come back and tell us the verdict before continuing to say something else in the same sentence - hence the comma. You have misunderstood him. Sheesh.. basic english here... lol

Mr_Incredible

^morning tricky lol

My story hasn't changed. Where people have asked for more detail I have provided such.

TrickyWicky

morning

Mr_Incredible

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/made

Car_54

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/made

... And your point is?