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

Johnmcl7

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

^AdrianC I'm not sure what your point is

Holding a phone for a second or two while putting it on your lap, then with the other hand until on the dash cove is not an offence anymore than holding a wallet as mentioned above.

The fact is I wasn't using it, the fact is o can prove at least that I wasn't using it to call or text or receive. The burden of prove is on them that I was using it.

So far there is only a reasonable suspicion.

That's not enough to win on court.

I have not admitted using the phone , only using the phone is an offence in this case

The problem is, right or wrong that it is enough for the CPS to win with at court - you wouldn't be the first person to be convicted that way and certainly not the last either.

John

Mr_Incredible

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

The problem is, right or wrong that it is enough for the CPS to win with at court - you wouldn't be the first person to be convicted that way and certainly not the last either.

John

Maybe the bigger problem is that most people fold and pay to avoid court.

I'm beginning to think that I should now go to court. I can afford it and actually if they progress this silliness and I win, they will be paying the costs

The officer actually handled it really badly when I reflect
I could have explained all this but he was too busy being aggro. He didn't even notice my hands free

neilmcl

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

The problem is, right or wrong that it is enough for the CPS to win with at court - you wouldn't be the first person to be convicted that way and certainly not the last either.

John

A police officer suspecting someone is using a mobile device is not the same as being able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person was using the device. There may be sufficient for the CPS to bring a case but prima facie there is not enough to guarantee a conviction.

Having said that, there's no guarantee that the OP will win either, he'll have to wait to see what evidence and testimony is provided on the day.

neilmcl

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that I should now go to court. I can afford it and actually if they progress this silliness and I win, they will be paying the costs

By the way you've been posting one would assume you were planning on doing this from the off.

Johnmcl7

neilmcl wrote: »

A police officer suspecting someone is using a mobile device is not the same as being able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person was using the device. There may be sufficient for the CPS to bring a case but prima facie there is not enough to guarantee a conviction.

Having said that, there's no guarantee that the OP will win either, he'll have to wait to see what evidence and testimony is provided on the day.

I didn't say anything about the officer suspecting someone is using a mobile phone nor is there any need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the device was being used. A statement from an officer saying they saw the person with the mobile phone in hand is enough in some cases to convince a magistrate to convict, to my knowledge this has never been tested in the higher courts and therefore no precedents have been set.

John

Altarf

AdrianC wrote: »

It's your word against a Police officer's.

And they know it, so is used as an easy way of bumping up their stats.

Johnmcl7

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

Maybe the bigger problem is that most people fold and pay to avoid court.

I'm beginning to think that I should now go to court. I can afford it and actually if they progress this silliness and I win, they will be paying the costs

The officer actually handled it really badly when I reflect
I could have explained all this but he was too busy being aggro. He didn't even notice my hands free

I think it's reasonable in this case for people to fold and avoid court as it's a real gamble to defend a mobile phone offence and the costs are much higher with a not guilty plea. However as long as you're aware of the risks and the costs, that's fine as it's in no way a slam dunk win for the CPS but your defence isn't that strong either so the outcome could be largely dependent on the magistrates on the day.

If you've not ready through prior mobile phone cases on pepipoo I'd highly recommend it to get a good idea of the process and the outcomes of difference cases.

John

Car_54

AdrianC wrote: »

You've admitted you were holding your phone in your hand whilst driving. The question is whether it was performing an interactive communication function at the time.

.

No it isn't. The only reference in the law to "interactive communication" is as part of the definition of "mobile phone", not of "use"

Composing or reading a text, or playing a game, is not performing an interactive communication, but I don't think anyone (or at least anyone sensible) would argue that it isn't "using".

dunroving

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Did you not read the op properly? - the phone was digging into their thigh.

Granted myself i'd have put my hand in my pocket and just tried to move it or something but sometimes i've pulled the offending object out and chucked it on the passenger seat.

Pulling something out and moving it isn't quite the same as fiddling with it. You make it sound like they were using it.

Yes, I read it properly - did you? I think the OP also talked about keeping the phone in a spot where he could keep an eye on it to see who was calling while he was in the car, which I also can't understand - did you read that? Or is that not "fiddling"?

My comment was just a general one, not specific to the OP. Though if the shoe fits ...

neilmcl

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

I didn't say anything about the officer suspecting someone is using a mobile phone nor is there any need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the device was being used. A statement from an officer saying they saw the person with the mobile phone in hand is enough in some cases to convince a magistrate to convict, to my knowledge this has never been tested in the higher courts and therefore no precedents have been set.

John

What on earth are you talking about. The criminal standard of proof applies equally to a magistrate as it would do in any higher court.