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

Cornucopia

I've only been stopped by Police a couple of times in 25 years of driving. However (not sure where I originally got this from) it absolutely makes sense to turn off the engine and get out of the car, if possible before they even speak to you. It's an effortless deference to them, weather permitting.

You really don't want to be that guy who has them banging on the window.

In terms of the actual offence, reading the legislation on page 1, it seems that no Court should be convicting unless there is actual, first-hand evidence of use. Simply having the phone in your hand, and neither typing nor speaking, is not evidence, IMHO.

I accept that some Magistrates might nod this through, but I'm guessing that on the Appeal someone will actually read the legislation.

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

it seems that no Court should be convicting unless there is actual, first-hand evidence of use.

There is the word of a policeman. It is going to be incredibly rare to have ANY evidence more than that in these cases, and incredibly common to have defences along the lines of the OP's.

but I'm guessing that on the Appeal someone will actually read the legislation.

The actual legislation has already been posted in this thread.

The "But I can produce phone records" defence can simply be debunked - is it possible to illegally "use" a phone whilst driving if there's no signal? Because, if it is, then the phone records are irrelevant.

Mr_Incredible

Cornucopia wrote: »

I've only been stopped by Police a couple of times in 25 years of driving. However (not sure where I originally got this from) it absolutely makes sense to turn off the engine and get out of the car, if possible before they even speak to you. It's an effortless deference to them, weather permitting.

You really don't want to be that guy who has them banging on the window.

In terms of the actual offence, reading the legislation on page 1, it seems that no Court should be convicting unless there is actual, first-hand evidence of use. Simply having the phone in your hand, and neither typing nor speaking, is not evidence, IMHO.

I accept that some Magistrates might nod this through, but I'm guessing that on the Appeal someone will actually read the legislation.

Thanks

I knew nothing of any accusation until someone started banging on my window, while I was driving! !

I didn't see the policeman

When I pulled over and asked what the problem was his response was "get out of the car" I just then asked him why.

I don't see that as unreasonable. I have alot of respect for the police I think they have a hard job weighed down by beurocracy and get paid peanuts

On this occasion the officer was overly excited and miss taken.

Mr_Incredible

AdrianC wrote: »

There is the word of a policeman. It is going to be incredibly rare to have ANY evidence more than that in these cases, and incredibly common to have defences along the lines of the OP's.


The actual legislation has already been posted in this thread.

The "But I can produce phone records" defence can simply be debunked - is it possible to illegally "use" a phone whilst driving if there's no signal? Because, if it is, then the phone records are irrelevant.

Thank you for your opinion Adrian

The word of the policeman cannot prove I was using a phone because I wasn't and as i've just said to you the legal advice is that simply handling and moving an object that happens to be a phone does not constitute using it.

If it did there may be an offence of "use of a bogey" where everyone who picks their nose while driving faces three points!!

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

There is the word of a policeman. It is going to be incredibly rare to have ANY evidence more than that in these cases, and incredibly common to have defences along the lines of the OP's.
.

Cornucopia is quite right that, under our legal system, the word of a policeman that he saw you handling the phone (which is often all he could truthfully say) should not be sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that you were using it because there are reasons for handling it other than "using" it.

It doesn't matter how often those "excuses" might be presented, or how fed up a magistrate might be of hearing them. If there's a reasonably plausible explanation, other than "using it" to explain why the policeman saw what he saw then, in the absence of extra evidence of "use" (such as phone records) you should be acquitted even if you're the 150th person who happened to be doing that very same thing that the magistrate's dealt with that week. That's what "beyond reasonable doubt" means!

Unfortunately, at Magistrates level, it's always a bit of a lottery on the day and, if you plan to defend such a situation, you need to go into it fully prepared to appeal and hopefully become that precedent setting case.

Car_54

Cornucopia wrote: »

I accept that some Magistrates might nod this through, but I'm guessing that on the Appeal someone will actually read the legislation.

The magistrates won't "nod it through": they have a legal adviser whose job it is to read the legislation.

They will listen to the evidence of the officer, who will say he saw the phone being used, and to the OP, and they will have to decide who to believe.

If the OP simply tells his story, and comes across as a credible witness, he has a chance.

Bringing in irrelevant stuff about phone records and police tactics won't help his case, and trying to cross-examine the policeman like some wannabe Perry Mason is unlikely to end well.

Cornucopia

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Unfortunately, at Magistrates level, it's always a bit of a lottery on the day and, if you plan to defend such a situation, you need to go into it fully prepared to appeal and hopefully become that precedent setting case.

The OP's defence will be assisted if the Policeman's statement is as vague as it sounds like it will be.

(In helping with countless TV Licensing cases, I've occasionally seen TVL prosecution statements in which no actual offence is documented. With this kind of conveyor-belt justice, it's relatively easy for such things to creep in).

Cornucopia

Car_54 wrote: »

They will listen to the evidence of the officer, who will say he saw the phone being used...

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

Mr_Incredible

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.

photome

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

He ran out into the road banging on my window, I had no clue ar the time what any of it was about and naturally enquired, he wouldn't tell me. Very odd indeed

Took me about five attempts to get him to say, and even then it was vague. Now I understand more about police tactics o realise just how tricky they can be in purge random stops and traps. They were lining the pavement that day and looking for any excuse to pull people over. This wasn't a one off. They were pulling loads of people over. I just didn't realise to begin with

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

Thanks

I knew nothing of any accusation until someone started banging on my window, while I was driving! !

I didn't see the policeman

When I pulled over and asked what the problem was his response was "get out of the car" I just then asked him why.

I don't see that as unreasonable. I have alot of respect for the police I think they have a hard job weighed down by beurocracy and get paid peanuts

On this occasion the officer was overly excited and miss taken.

they were lining the pavement but you didnt see them

something doesnt add up