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

Spicy_McHaggis

IanMSpencer wrote: »

and I do not doubt it. However, what you need to find out is why he was found not guilty, when what you describe is clearly against the law. It can be:

- CPS failed to produce evidence that he was using his phone. This is quite common, the incompetence of CPS barristers knows no bounds (or rather, the barrister gets the pack about 5 minutes before the case, and realises that there is half of it missing so they can't properly go ahead).
- Magistrates disagreed on what using the phone meant, usually when there is an experienced solicitor confusing them. It may be that the use of a handsfree kit made them decide there had not be a breach (though there probably was).
- Someone misled the court as to what actually went on and got away with it.
- Some procedural error.

Chances are that he denied using the phone at the time and the magistrates felt that handling the phone did not constitute use and they felt that the prosecution witness was not convincing on having seen actual phone use.

I've said before that these cases are winnable, but it is a lottery and you'd be wrong to assume you will win because an apparently more solid case has won. For example, it may be that the CPS thought they had an easy case and didn't really work on the evidence of use and it fell apart, whereas with yours, they know that they will have to work on the "what is use?" question as they know you deny using the phone for calls.

Also there might be a change in enthusiasm for prosecuting with the announcement this morning that 1/2 million drivers use their phones in a survey from the DfT to "assess compliance". This might well be a precursor to issuing guidance to courts or changing sentencing guidelines. The chances are it will be 6 months before your case goes to court, plenty of time for some new government enthusiasm to deal with the problem.

In the end, the question is whether it is worth risking an additional £500 of costs against a fixed penalty £100 fine, or getting off but still having your own time and costs.

FWIW, plenty of people do win when people think it is an open and shut case. There was a case recently on Pepipoo where someone fought a speeding ticket and won when everyone was convinced that what he was saying was nonsense (he essentially admitted speeding but disagreed with the speed reading for a long list of what sounded dubious reasons and came up with his own calculation that nobody believed was accurate), and I think that what happened was that bulls**t baffled brains - which does happen.

Barristers and Magistrates in the same court?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Barristers and Magistrates in the same court?

Fair cop, crown prosecutor (a qualified prosecuting solicitor).

Mr_Incredible

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Fair cop, crown prosecutor (a qualified prosecuting solicitor).

Layman's terms = same !!!!

Great post btw thanks

Mr_Incredible

"Following your email below I have checked the correspondence and ticket completed by the officer.

I can confirm I am cancelling the ticket"

FIGHT BACK PEOPLE & IGNORE THE NAYSAYERS

Stoke

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

"Following your email below I have checked the correspondence and ticket completed by the officer.

I can confirm I am cancelling the ticket"

FIGHT BACK PEOPLE & IGNORE THE NAYSAYERS

Well done!

I imagine that copper is fuming. Who's going to pay for the Summer Party?

TadleyBaggie

Except any fine would have gone to the treasury, the police don't see a penny if it.

Tobster86

This is good news.

I have nothing against this law, and when appropriately & properly enforced it works. This case was not an example of that and needed throwing out for the sake of maintaining respect for the law.

Mr_Incredible

Tobster86 wrote: »

This is good news.

I have nothing against this law, and when appropriately & properly enforced it works. This case was not an example of that and needed throwing out for the sake of maintaining respect for the law.

I concur with those sentiments

Mr_Incredible

Stoke wrote: »

Well done!

I imagine that copper is fuming. Who's going to pay for the Summer Party?

Thank you

This should never have progressed

Mr_Incredible

TadleyBaggie wrote: »

Except any fine would have gone to the treasury, the police don't see a penny if it.

To some extent a circular funding argument can be levelled.