Filmed by cyclist touching a device

DanDare999

jsrose said:

Well i need to check the footage but those are the facts - and not sure how that will be judged.  Everyone seemed so fixated by the cyclist filming me - who also happens to be a DR and probably works in the same hospital!!!  - i haven’t checked that but!

Maybe if you'd said that at the start then it would have saved a lot of time, rather than look like something you've made up later to construct a defence. 

The cyclists occupation or place of work isn't relevant. 

flaneurs_lobster

jsrose said:

 Everyone seemed so fixated by the cyclist filming me - who also happens to be a DR and probably works in the same hospital!!!  

How do you know the filmer is a doctor? Is the name of the grass public-spirited citizen who dobbed you in made known to you as part of the SJPN process?

jsrose

Yes it gives his name as a witness 

TooManyPoints

If they think they can prove that you were holding the phone (while using it and while driving), perhaps. But like I said, it's holding the phone which is a necessary part of the offence 

Perhaps you could tell us where you get this idea from (and preferably provide some authority). The term "hand-held" is only mentioned in the statute to define the type of device. The law says nothing at all about "holding" the phone. It only mentions "using" it. In the event of a not guilty plea and a trial it would be for the court to decide whether or not the phone was being "used". If you believe that placing the phone on the passenger seat or balancing it on the driver's knee whilst operating it does not constitute "using" it (because it is not being held) I fear you may be mistaken. As I said earlier, it would make a nonsense of the law.

I'm losing the will to live wading through the arguments, has the OP actually said where exactly the 'phone was and why they were touching it?

Me too! We are never going to be able to offer sensible advice unless the OP can answer some of the questions raised.

GrumpyDil

Is the OP now suggesting it was not a phone but a device used to open the car park barrier or have I misunderstood that? 

jsrose

To be fair i specifically said ‘device’.  Just reading through my SJPN and he does say he would be willing to come to court to testify.   But he also admits that the footage has been digitally altered - he says ‘slowed down’.  He also accuses me of having no insurance- which is absolutely not the case - that is not what i have been charged with though!

elsien

GrumpyDil said:

Is the OP now suggesting it was not a phone but a device used to open the car park barrier or have I misunderstood that? 

Yes, I’m still very confused about what actually happened as well.

flaneurs_lobster

jsrose said:

Yes it gives his name as a witness 

Really? My not-yet started career as a cycling vigilante is at an end. Don't want some very unhappy motorist with 6 points on his license popping round to help me consider if I may have misremembered. 

DanDare999

jsrose said:

To be fair i specifically said ‘device’.  Just reading through my SJPN and he does say he would be willing to come to court to testify.   But he also admits that the footage has been digitally altered - he says ‘slowed down’.  He also accuses me of having no insurance- which is absolutely not the case - that is not what i have been charged with though!

So if it shows you holding a phone, you're gonna claim it was the barrier device?

eastcorkram

jsrose said:

To be fair i specifically said ‘device’.  Just reading through my SJPN and he does say he would be willing to come to court to testify.   But he also admits that the footage has been digitally altered - he says ‘slowed down’.  He also accuses me of having no insurance- which is absolutely not the case - that is not what i have been charged with though!

Any idea why they would accuse you of having no insurance?