Prosecuted for having a mobile phone in my car!!!!

[rf065]

getting the records, try quoting s.35 of the Data protection Act 1998 at them, along with proof of the court case. They are obliged to release the records to you as they are needed for court proceedings. That applies to the phone company and/or your employer if it is their phone.

I appreciate that, but if I could get the records easily & quickly, and show them to the procurator fiscal, I've been advised it would be dropped and not even go to trial, therefore no legal fees or other expenses. It appears the only sure fire way to get the records is when you are already committed to going to court. Anyway, presently waiting on a lawyer to phone me, as a member of the GMB union I get free legal advice, waiting to hear if they also cover court appearences too. Hopefully they do.

Russ

 

[parthiban]

I appreciate that, but if I could get the records easily & quickly, and show them to the procurator fiscal, I've been advised it would be dropped and not even go to trial, therefore no legal fees or other expenses. It appears the only sure fire way to get the records is when you are already committed to going to court. Anyway, presently waiting on a lawyer to phone me, as a member of the GMB union I get free legal advice, waiting to hear if they also cover court appearences too. Hopefully they do.

Russ

At least that sounds promising, hope it isn't too hard to get hold of the phone records and this all goes away without too much hassle or cost.

 

[M80]

Fine until the innocent is yourself.................

RH

Of course you are absolutely right on that one.
And of course the innocent being wronged would destroy the credibility and trust in the system of justice.

I don't think I am the only one that has belief that justice is becoming less correct as we, in theory, progress.

A little off topic, but more people feel threatened by the animals out there, and the animals seem to have an increasing disrespect of the law and consequences.
The system, again in theory, is there to protect the innocent, but it is failing. The trust and credibility are already in serious doubt.

We hope that the superior brains that lead us will carry out the task of protection they are entrusted to do, but we see levels of corruption there that cast doubt on their credibility.
Also the measures put in place for our protection often seem to affect us more adversely than those the measures are aimed at. The 'animals' win again. There is an eternal battle to overcome, and a very difficult, complicated, often very technical, one it is. I wouldn't try and pretend I know any better answers, although maybe we goodies could possibly try a little more to contribute toward the good.

More innocents may be affected in the attempt to be correct than would be affected by errors???

 

[The mallard]

The police shoul have noted the imei number from your phone, by inputting the ##6 and whatever else it is, and noted your mobile number, so that if necessary THEY can contact your service provider to get the phone record to prove you were USING the phone at the time. This used to be standard procedure to counter people who produced phone records from another phone, but in your case it would prove your innocence.

Of course if they did not note these details they may find it very hard to prove you were USING a mobile. Holding it to your ear is not using it!

 

[LTD]

Go to court, win your case and take civil action against the two officers in question to recoup the monies you are out of pocket.

.... or at least threaten that action in the event of it going to court and you winning. A warning shot across their bows will do no harm

 

[ianrandom]

I would want to fight it. Its worrying really, i use my phone as my music source in the car, plugged into the aux. So much better than CD's. Its never going to be in the boot.
Surely they just expect you to roll over and pay the fine. The more people that dont, the more they'll be doing it.
Best of luck whatever you do though.

 

[Myros]

Russ give it a whirl, clipped below

You will see it refers to rights yet to be exercised under 2(a) and 2(b).
If they refuse, mention Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as incorporated into UK law in the Human rights Act 1998
( schedule 1). ( Right to a fair trial). That should get them moving, regardless of what your lawyer says in addition.
The police are obliged to disclose fully the evidence against you.Well prior to trial. So you may prepare your defence.

s.35 DPA 1998
Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc .
(1)
Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court. .
(2)
Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary— .
(a)
for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or .
(b)
for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, .
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

 

[cleverdicky]

Wow, all that Eu convention.

Perhaps thats why we lost our ' Habeas corpus ' common law system, and now have the NEW EU Napoleonic (The State (EU) rules and comes first) type of law STATE LAW Corpus Juris. Police 'persons' are now upholders (officers) of the governments LEGAL system.
Please dont confuse them with Police 'men' who used to up hold (common) law.
Remember people we all had a vote - didnt we?

http://www.eutruth.org.uk/signseupolice.html

http://alfredtheordinary.vox.com/library/post/magna-carta-eu-corpus-juris-and-common-law.html

 

[M80]

http://www.eutruth.org.uk/signseupolice.html

I've not read the 2nd link yet, but without the recent historical references the write up is pretty well as I have been thinking for some time, and my conclusions are much as the last paragraph.

The conspiracy theories aren't something I would argue against.

 

[kth286]

I think you p----d them off for some reason. I still have faith in the system.

What is their motivation to issue a difficult case, like this is puported to be ?

When there are many easy genuine cases they can be pursueing.

WE recently had a roadside police stop session locally and the number of people pulled over for using their phone was incredible.

 

[turbopete]

When there are many easy genuine cases they can be pursueing.

like drug dealing, drug driving, muggings, house break-ins etc. but that would mean looking for criminals, not sitting at the roadside, drinking coffee till someone comes along they can stitch up!

fight the case, i say!

incidentally the IMEI number (dial *#06#) only identifies the HANDSET not the SIM used

 

[M80]

I think you p----d them off for some reason. I still have faith in the system.

What is their motivation to issue a difficult case, like this is puported to be ?

When there are many easy genuine cases they can be pursueing.

WE recently had a roadside police stop session locally and the number of people pulled over for using their phone was incredible.

This sounds like the Police are excused for becoming emotional and creating a fraudulent prosecution to teach a lesson. The new justice system in operation??

By the way the prosecution process goes through a few stages before the summons arrives, they can't all be p*ssed off with the op.

 

[rovingHawk]

I think you p----d them off for some reason.

Is that any justification for them acting stupidly & unprofessionally?

I still have faith in the system.

Are you part of it? I lost my faith in it many moons ago.

What is their motivation to issue a difficult case,

Napoleon said never to ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

When there are many easy genuine cases they can be pursueing.

You're right- they normally only seem to pursue easy, profitable cases against safe targets.

WE recently had a roadside police stop session locally.

Pulling people to check whether they're doing wrong? Why not search their houses in case they might have stolen property, drugs, etc? Who needs reasonable grounds before hassling the public?

RH

 

[kth286]

on that last point they were pulling over ONLY the people that were doing wrong.

the observers up the road were telling their colleagues (via radio phones) which cars to pull over; based on the ones not wearing seat belts and ones using the phone.

 

[kth286]

in addition to the obvious mistakes drivers were making, once they were pulled over, the police gave the cars a once over and found numerous other offences, like bald tyres, nil tax etc etc with a few cars being confiscated there and then.

 

[Alex M Grieve]

in addition to the obvious mistakes drivers were making, once they were pulled over, the police gave the cars a once over and found numerous other offences, like bald tyres, nil tax etc etc with a few cars being confiscated there and then.

Quite right too David.

If we had more of this then there would be much more space on the roads for me!

 

[dieselman]

in addition to the obvious mistakes drivers were making, once they were pulled over, the police gave the cars a once over and found numerous other offences, like bald tyres, nil tax etc etc with a few cars being confiscated there and then.

That's because as usual the people that flaunt the law on minor issues also flaunt it on more major ones.
I suspect some of the impounded cars had no insurance cover or MOT, in which case it was a good exercise to stop them.

 

[rovingHawk]

on that last point

The inference is that my other points went fairly close to home.

I approve of enforcing the laws; however, I feel that motoring offences are prioritised because of their ease, and prioritised to the detriment of proper enforcement of often more important issues. We're still waiting for the officer that was supposed to investigate our burglary at work the following day- this was 7 months ago.

RH

 

[M80]

I feel that motoring offences are prioritised because of their ease, and prioritised to the detriment of proper enforcement of often more important issues. We're still waiting for the officer that was supposed to investigate our burglary at work the following day- this was 7 months ago.

RH

Leave the poor chap alone, he's obviously busy.

Probably learning how to hold his riot shield, or sledge on it.


In truth I have no problem in the wrong being caught. No tax likely means no insurance and / or MOT, other issues too possibly. Done the crime now do the time, if we do wrong we should accept the punishment.

A problem is that more often it becomes difficult to see that wrong has been done but there is a punishment handed out. Those that impose the penalties make 'lashing the whip' a possible result where a reprimand might suffice. The discrepancy in the system seems to be little used to give a reprimand, we see a robotic response from those with their given power.

And yet those that really create an adverse effect on society escape a deserved punishment because the system has problem penalising them, as they often have little to lose, or the financial expense to the system is too great. This is at the expense of the quality of life for those who believe there is protection afforded by the system.

I think it's time for another holiday, my 'ead 'urts.

 

[Gary Hanson]

CPS – Code for Crown Prosecutors

Section 8

h) is there further evidence which the police or other investigators should reasonably be asked to find which may support or undermine the account of the witness ?

I'd say yes for this. Was the mobile phone siezed by police after, or when you were stopped ? If so, they could have established whether or not it was being used to make or recieve a call at the time you were alleged to have been using it. But it might be prudent not to mention that analysis of the phone, or even obtaining the records from the network provider, would not necessarily establish whether or not the handset was being used in order to type a text message, unless this was subsequently sent. Just touching or holding a phone (or any handheld device) is an offence, not just using it for calls.

I'd write to the police and / CPS / Ministry of Justice or whatever they're calling themselves nowadays, to state that you are not guilty of the alleged offence. Point out it is their responsibility to prove the offence, and obtain whatever evidence is necessary to achieve this (bearing in mind their own code of practice). You could add that they are welcome to analyse your phone in order to check whether or not it was being used at the time of the alleged offence, and that if they fail to do this, you reserve the right to draw this fact to the attention of the court.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code2010english.pdf

Access to the law and justice is meant to be available to everyone, and with something like this, you don't need a solicitor to plead not guilty in court. As a defendant in person, you would be entitled to cross examine any prosecution witnesses yourself, so use this opportunity to bring into question the reliability of their observation skills. It's not a crime drama, Rumpole of the Bailey, or Cavanagh QC, and you definitely don't want to alienate the magistrates by suggesting that the police are liars. At best, it's an honest mistake on the part of the officers concerned, and you're grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight and tell your side of the story. For example, you could ask the police officer / witness to describe in detail what happened from when they stopped you to when you left. Then you could ask them to describe your car, drawing the magistrates' attention to any detail they might leave out, such as any distinguishing features particular to your actual car. You could also ask them how well they could see into your car and from what position, plus any other detail they would have been able to see if they really are as observant as they are suggesting they are.
Next, ask what action they took other than reporting you for prosecution, to establish your guilt. To me, this would have to include either checking your actual mobile phone there and then for evidence of calls made and recieved around the time of the alleged offence, or the requesitioning of call records for your phone. The reality is that for the police or cps to requesition phone records would cost a lot, and they are unlikely to do it unless they were investigating a much more serious crime (fraud, rape, murder etc). But if they did neither, I'd ask tell the magistrates to consider the question of whether you would be foolish enough to plead not guilty if you had been on the phone at the time, knowing that the police could check the phone or obtain phone records to confirm this if it was true. You could suggest to the magistrates that you believe the case should not have been brought before them, and then if you judge it to be the appropriate moment, ask them to dismiss the case due to lack of evidence.