S172(2) alledged offence of using an electronic device whilst driving

RandomTourist

"When I spot a driver that's not paying attention, I pay a lot more attention when I'm near them so that one of us can react. "

This is standard careful driving. I have had some limited extra training but I didn't need it to be able to appreciate this comment. Watching vehicles around you means that you can detect drifting from one part of the lane to another, or sudden minor corrections of course, or changes in speed, or possibly a rear wiper going when there's no rain. All of these things can give warning of inattention - might be phone, might be looking at scenery, might be all sorts of things - it's surprising (and concerning) that its so commonly phone use.

If one or more of these telltale signs were there, of course a police driver, with his extra training, would be approaching with caution and also with professional curiosity.

paul_c123

I concur. I can normally spot a driver on the phone from their road positioning etc, before I see them on the phone.

LightFlare

Gerrard00004 said:

user1977 said:

Quite often, if they happen to be driving oddly, and probably much more if it was literally my job to detect this sort of offence.

If it was their job to detect this sort of offence they would be trained in stopping vehicles on the motorway, they would have cameras and the driver wouldn't be the one trying to observe any offences. 

As I alluded to, neither statement suggests I was driving oddly? Would it be wrong to suggest that the driver would have to lean forward to look past the passenger, who was wearing a police uniform. Remember the weather conditions that day hadn't been good, spray from the road, reduced breaking and yet the Driver was quite happy to be looking at other drivers whilst over taking them in the fast lane? the Statements are pure BS! 

Go to court and use that in your defence then.

RandomTourist

"If it was their job to detect this sort of offence they would be trained in stopping vehicles on the motorway, they would have cameras and the driver wouldn't be the one trying to observe any offences. "

It is the job of all police officers to detect all forms of crime, and to prevent crime as well. Do you seriously think that a police officer needs to be trained specifically for every possible crime? Do you think that photographic evidence is needed every time?

Clutching at straws, I'm afraid. Please come back to this forum with the outcome.

Yorkie1

TooManyPoints said:

I don't know enough about the defence process/practice at this moment in time to provide an answer. As it is, I would want a lot more factually evidence, including the email chain he refers to but has failed to provide.

You have all the evidence you’re going to get at this point. If you plead Not Guilty you will be asked to attend court for a “case management” hearing. At that hearing, if there is anything else you want you will have to ask the court to order its disclosure. They will want to know what you want and why you think it will either assist your defence or undermine the prosecution.

At the case management hearing, the issues in the case must be identified. if the OP decides to plead not guilty and proceed to trial, the issues appear likely to be: a) that the date of the charge is incorrect (ambush defences are not allowed, and so the prosecution can then amend the charge); b) factual dispute about OP's actions; and c) whether the 'using' element of the offence is established.

You identify which witnesses you wish the prosecution to call (both officers) and any other witnesses you may wish to call (unlikely). 

The court will not make orders for disclosure unless a) unused material documents have been served on the OP, by the prosecution; b) OP has provided a defence statement which complies with the legislation; and c) prosecution have purported to comply with ongoing disclosure in response to the defence statement. The court has no power to order disclosure without the legislative process having been followed.

However, today is the day you must respond to the SJPN by. Have you done so?

If you haven’t, there is one more alternative you may consider. If you plead guilty you can ask the court to sentence you at the fixed penalty level (£200 and 6 points). They have guidance which suggests they should do this is some circumstances:

“Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances.”

There was a considerable delay between the date of the offence and a s172 request being sent to you, making it too late to offer you a fixed penalty. This was outside your control so, providing the prosecution agree that a fixed penalty would normally have been offered,  the court should agree to your request.

Comments as above in bold to clarify one part of TMP's post, which is really good.

ontheroad1970

TheSpectator said:

Gerrard00004 said:

user1977 said:

Quite often, if they happen to be driving oddly, and probably much more if it was literally my job to detect this sort of offence.

If it was their job to detect this sort of offence they would be trained in stopping vehicles on the motorway, they would have cameras and the driver wouldn't be the one trying to observe any offences. 

As I alluded to, neither statement suggests I was driving oddly? Would it be wrong to suggest that the driver would have to lean forward to look past the passenger, who was wearing a police uniform. Remember the weather conditions that day hadn't been good, spray from the road, reduced breaking and yet the Driver was quite happy to be looking at other drivers whilst over taking them in the fast lane? the Statements are pure BS! 

Your continued focus on irrelevant facts are not going to help any defence. 

There is no such thing as a 'fast lane', overtaking lane maybe.

Ten pages in and the fact remains that if you go to court you are going to have to convince a judge/magistrate, not us, that the police officers were lying and have basically comitted perjury. It's your word against two officers - how likely do you think the judge will believe you over 2 witnesses.

He would be ill advised to convince the court that the officers were lying.  He would need to introduce reasonable doubt by suggesting that they were mistaken

Bonniepurple

OP, if, as you are adamant, you weren’t using/holding/being distracted by a mobile phone, what was causing your driving and awareness to slip to such an extent that the police spotted you but you were completely unaware of them approaching in a marked vehicle?  Should you really be driving if your observational skills are so low? 

Mildly_Miffed

Bonniepurple said:

OP, if, as you are adamant, you weren’t using/holding/being distracted by a mobile phone, what was causing your driving and awareness to slip to such an extent that the police spotted you but you were completely unaware of them approaching in a marked vehicle?  Should you really be driving if your observational skills are so low? 

Hold on - I thought the issue here was that they noted the "wrong hand", and the OP agreed they definitely WERE holding the phone at the time they couldn't possibly be seen by the marked police vehicle that appeared from nowhere?

sheramber

 As, I did so, a Police Van passed on the outer lane. Instantly I thought, oh ****

Why?

What was the problem with police van passing you?