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

Richard53

neilmcl wrote: »

The criminal standard of proof applies equally to a magistrate as it would do in any higher court.

Indeed it does, but the opinions of magistrates as to what is 'beyond reasonable doubt' will vary. Some will no doubt take the attitude that if a policeman says it, it is beyond reasonable doubt that it happened.

TrickyWicky

Richard53 wrote: »

Indeed it does, but the opinions of magistrates as to what is 'beyond reasonable doubt' will vary. Some will no doubt take the attitude that if a policeman says it, it is beyond reasonable doubt that it happened.

Yes but the production of a detailed report from the phone provider that shows no activity then introduces 'reasonable' doubt to the case.

Richard53

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Yes but the production of a detailed report from the phone provider that shows no activity then introduces 'reasonable' doubt to the case.

I don't know the technicalities of this, but presumably the phone provider can only supply data that is generated from using the phone aspect of the device (calls, texts etc). You can do a lot with a smart phone without using the phone part - play games, look up contacts, play music, watch stored TV programmes, videos etc (in fact for some of my colleagues, this is probably 95% of their phone usage). Presumably all this comes under the category of 'using a mobile phone', and the provider's report is therefore not sufficient to prove or disprove anything. Happy to be educated on this, though.

Mr_Incredible

The point is, a policeman may be able to say "I saw him with what looked like a mobile phone" but that's all he can say.

He never actually asked me if I had a mobile phone, he did ask if I was using a mobile phone to make an emergency phone call to which I replied no.

He never asked to see my mobile phone.

There is no way he can prove I was using a mobile phone, because I wasn't, I merely moved it.

I have hands free blue tooth.

They could cause me of not being in control but I allways gad one hand on the wheel and it's an automatic transmission

I don't see how anyone can say that an officers statement saying "I saw him with a phone in his hand" can constitute beyond reasonable doubt that someone was using it. Especially when they have a report from their phone network provider proving that they could not have been calling, answering or texting.

It's all very well saying "it's a police officers testemony" but what exactly can they testify? Only that they saw me with what looked a phone in my hand or on my lap.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

What the OP doesn't realise is that if he explains himself in court the way he has here, he will probably confirm the policeman's view that he was using the phone.

Firstly, there is the confusing way he talks about the phone being off when I suspect what he means is it was on, bluetoothed to the car, but on the lock screen - which is not off. Also, it may be that the police will get evidence from the provider that the phone was on at the time, not just the call log.

Then there is the question of use, where simply handling the phone is counted - add in comments about being able to read the screen along with the admission of handling it, then the magistrates are going to be asking what it is that the policeman saw. Clearly or OP was fiddling around and I would want to know where the police were and what they saw. The OP needs to consider what he did that alerted the police to know he had a phone, not say a hanky.

As already been said, an attitude test has been failed, and I suspect that if the OP had said, sorry officer, I know what it looks like but I was just getting it out of my pocket as it was uncomfortable while stationary (and that matched what the policeman saw) then he might have got away with it, but start on about automatics and hands free then what is going to be heard is excuses for it being OK to fiddle a phone. It sounds to me like the policeman is going to claim that had a good view of more, and given a clear account from the officer compared with the vague assertions here then the only thing in the OP's favour is that the CPS can be stunningly useless in court.

arcon5

So the policeman says 'i saw him using a mobile phone'
judge says 'was you using a mobile phone sir'
Op 'no'
judge 'where was your phone at the time of the alleged incident'
op 'on my leg' or 'in my hand'

well ops defence may create doubt, but is it BEYOND reasonable doubt.
especially since the above questioning is hardly going to fill you with confidence.

risk:reward ratio isn't right imo. I'd pay it.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Oh, also to add, one hand on the wheel at all times also come across as a further admission of not being in full control of the vehicle, which requires two hands on the wheel, changing gear being deemed a necessary evil where a driver should immediately return their hands to the wheel, not rest their hand on the gear stick.

wiogs

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

The point is, a policeman may be able to say "I saw him with what looked like a mobile phone" but that's all he can say.

He never actually asked me if I had a mobile phone, he did ask if I was using a mobile phone to make an emergency phone call to which I replied no.

He never asked to see my mobile phone.

There is no way he can prove I was using a mobile phone, because I wasn't, I merely moved it.

I have hands free blue tooth.

They could cause me of not being in control but I allways gad one hand on the wheel and it's an automatic transmission

I don't see how anyone can say that an officers statement saying "I saw him with a phone in his hand" can constitute beyond reasonable doubt that someone was using it. Especially when they have a report from their phone network provider proving that they could not have been calling, answering or texting.

It's all very well saying "it's a police officers testemony" but what exactly can they testify? Only that they saw me with what looked a phone in my hand or on my lap.

You keep going on about this and people keep telling you it is irrelevant.

"Using" a phone does not only mean calling, answering or texting.

AdrianC

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Yes but the production of a detailed report from the phone provider that shows no activity then introduces 'reasonable' doubt to the case.

No, it does not. All it shows is that the phone wasn't actively making or receiving a phone call or text message or data.

They are not the only things that it's illegal to do with a phone whilst driving.

IanMSpencer wrote:

What the OP doesn't realise is that if he explains himself in court the way he has here, he will probably confirm the policeman's view that he was using the phone.

This, with bells on.

Spicy_McHaggis

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Oh, also to add, one hand on the wheel at all times also come across as a further admission of not being in full control of the vehicle, which requires two hands on the wheel, changing gear being deemed a necessary evil where a driver should immediately return their hands to the wheel, not rest their hand on the gear stick.

Not really, they would need to evidence he wasn't in full control. Something that effected his driving, if there was and he argued the toss at the time it would have been easier to do him for that offence.