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

[chastrain]

more silly little worms looking for prizes for points, they have bets to see who can score the highest.... how sad .

Would just get the phone record for that time, send with a letter to the beak or the stations chief cop and it wont ever reach the court, at least it shouldn't

wish you well .

 

[teddycatkin]

I would NOT be happy just to establish my innocence but also counter claim for time off work to attend court + all expenses incurred and an amount decided by the court for stress inconvenience and false accusation --and make it clear you will be doing this !
It could not only end up with "egg on face" but also be expensive for them---they will then at best try and drop the case realizing the error of thier ways--but insist on going to court now--it will deter this nonsense OTT motorist hassle going on for everyone?

 

[kth286]

more silly little worms looking for prizes for points, they have bets to see who can score the highest.... how sad .

Would just get the phone record for that time, send with a letter to the beak or the stations chief cop and it wont ever reach the court, at least it shouldn't

wish you well .

That's what i would do.

I did it many moons ago re driving through red light.

I stated I was just completing my manoeuvre on amber and it would have been dangerous to suddenly stop.

Letter from Chief Constable accepting my version of events and all proceedings stopped.

 

[441]

Surely as someone pointed out earlier, it's an offence to be holding a hand held mobile phone whilst driving regardless of whether you was actually making a call or not, the police will just say they saw you holding it, and then it's their word against yours, and in the eyes of the law a police officers account of the event will ALWAYS be believed rather than yours, i think that 99% of the people on this thread are under the illusion that we still have a fair and reasonable justice system in this country!!!

 

[The mallard]

It is not a specific offence to be holding a mobile phone, anymore than it is an offence to hold an apple. In these cases the prosecution must prove a deterioration in driving ability. (RTA Section 3)
Using a mobile phone is a specific offence of USING a hand held device
ie.
A hand–held device is something that "is or must be held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function".

So the prosecution must prove USE.

 

[Xtractorfan]

And someone got off recently as they said they were using a recording device to dictate some thing or other...and not using a mobile phone...

 

[rf065]

And someone got off recently as they said they were using a recording device to dictate some thing or other...and not using a mobile phone...

Correct, Jimmy Carr

Russ

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Correct, Jimmy Carr

Russ

It is a great relief that the lawyers capable of achieving such results for "personalities" don't wok for the CPS! Otherwise we would all be in trouble.

 

[Oarsman]

Some years ago a Tory peer, Gerald Nabarro, was arrested and charged with drink driving.
He alleged that his secretary was driving and not him. Two police officers and several independent witnesses gave evidence that he was driving.
When the case went to court he was found not guilty.
His statement to the press outside the court concluded with the following,
"British justice is the best in the world.......if you can afford it".

 

[Some guy on the internet]

Some years ago a Tory peer, Gerald Nabarro, was arrested and charged with drink driving.
He alleged that his secretary was driving and not him. Two police officers and several independent witnesses gave evidence that he was driving.
When the case went to court he was found not guilty.
His statement to the press outside the court concluded with the following,
"British justice is the best in the world.......if you can afford it".

Nabarro wasn't a Peer, he was a Conservative MP, the son of a N. London shopkeeper who was educated in state schools, leaving at the age of 16 to join the Army where he rose to the rank of Sergeant. It wasn't drink driving, it was a charge of Dangerous Driving for driving the wrong way around a roundabout in his Daimler, NAB 1.

He was convicted & fined £250 in 1971. He was given leave to appeal 6 months later. Between the first trial & re-trial his health went completely to hell. He suffered 2 strokes & died at the age of 60 3 months after his conviction was overturned. Perhaps a bit of a Pyrrhic victory.

What he actually said was "“It underlines the simple point I made, that if a man can afford to pay he will secure justice. The man who cannot afford to pay will rarely secure it.”

 

[Juddian]

Presumably these were traffic police officers, they are not popular with proper coppers who have to deal with the usual dross, they have a term for them which i won't repeat.

Cases like these cause good people to distrust the police with good reason.

I agree with the poster above who reminded us we have a vote, and as a nation voted one (though they've got a cozy club going it seems of two) of the three stooges back in for another term of hell.

 

[dieselman]

Nabarro wasn't a Peer, he was a Conservative MP, the son of a N. London shopkeeper who was educated in state schools, leaving at the age of 16 to join the Army where he rose to the rank of Sergeant. It wasn't drink driving, it was a charge of Dangerous Driving for driving the wrong way around a roundabout in his Daimler, NAB 1.

He was convicted & fined £250 in 1971. He was given leave to appeal 6 months later. Between the first trial & re-trial his health went completely to hell. He suffered 2 strokes & died at the age of 60 3 months after his conviction was overturned. Perhaps a bit of a Pyrrhic victory.

What he actually said was "“It underlines the simple point I made, that if a man can afford to pay he will secure justice. The man who cannot afford to pay will rarely secure it.”

Do we know who the passenger was? A woman who has been involved in a few court cases and scandals since then.

 

[Oarsman]

Nabarro wasn't a Peer, he was a Conservative MP, the son of a N. London shopkeeper who was educated in state schools, leaving at the age of 16 to join the Army where he rose to the rank of Sergeant. It wasn't drink driving, it was a charge of Dangerous Driving for driving the wrong way around a roundabout in his Daimler, NAB 1.

He was convicted & fined £250 in 1971. He was given leave to appeal 6 months later. Between the first trial & re-trial his health went completely to hell. He suffered 2 strokes & died at the age of 60 3 months after his conviction was overturned. Perhaps a bit of a Pyrrhic victory.

What he actually said was "“It underlines the simple point I made, that if a man can afford to pay he will secure justice. The man who cannot afford to pay will rarely secure it.”

Thanks for the correction, I was not quoting chapter and verse, just what I remember from many years ago.
I suppose I should have Googled it just to ensure that all the facts were perfect.
My point was that it is amazing how so many high profile individuals manage to elude the sort of "justice" that is meeted out to we poor working class.
If you can afford the best legal minds, it seems to me that you can get away with almost anything.

 

[M80]

It often seems like lawyers and judges are more interested in the game of law instead of justice.

The lawyers are trained to be dispassionate about the morals of the case and give their best for the 'debate'.
That's where judges have risen from.

 

[Some guy on the internet]

Do we know who the passenger was? A woman who has been involved in a few court cases and scandals since then.

Christine Hamilton came after the secretary he had at the time of this incident.

 

[dieselman]

Christine Hamilton came after the secretary he had at the time of this incident.

Ah, if that's so, then I'm mistaken.
Thanks

 

[SilverSaloon]

I'd like to think that if I were in your shoes, i would fight it all the way.

 

[rf065]

I'd like to think that if I were in your shoes, i would fight it all the way.

Spoke to the lawyer yesterday, through the GMB union and they only offer free legal advice, if I want representation in court they will offer me a 15% discount and that money cannot be reclaimed through the courts in Scotland according to him. Waiting on a letter outlining the likely cost of pleading not guilty in court. The phone records have still not appeared either. The phone is in the boot every journey now, not going through this again!

Russ

 

[Ben Longden]

It often seems like lawyers and judges are more interested in the game of law instead of justice.
/

Call me a cynic, but after 22 or so years working behind a news camera, I have to agree and add that true and natural Justice is only given to those with the deepest pockets.

If I may mangle a quote, its not Truth that shall set you free, but the best and most expensive lawyer.

Sorry... I promise never to be so cynical... ever.. ever... well... aahhh buggerit.

Back onto the topic, though, the plods were doing a roaring trade in Sydney the other day during a three hour operation. They were fining people who were HOLDING their phones. Not using them, just HOLDING them.

Apparently, even if the phone is switched off, and the SIM card out... and you get caught, there is a nice fine.

Then there is the GPS.....

Ben

 

[jberks]

Spoke to the lawyer yesterday, through the GMB union and they only offer free legal advice, if I want representation in court they will offer me a 15% discount and that money cannot be reclaimed through the courts in Scotland according to him. Waiting on a letter outlining the likely cost of pleading not guilty in court. The phone records have still not appeared either. The phone is in the boot every journey now, not going through this again!

Russ

Yours is just one of thousands of cases that some clerk (muppet) has on their desk. They get a lot of 'It wasn't me guv' so their default position is to say, pay up or go to court. So, their "there is sufficient evidence" isn't based on anything more than a tick in the box at this stage. It's highly doubtful that a solicitor has actually seen the details, let alone a barister made such a dermination. Yes it's true, they bluff!!
Now, in my experience, a decent solicitor can resolve this with one well worded letter. The CPS, like everyone else has budgetary pressures. They can't afford to fight cases that they're going to lose.
If they are presented with a letter from a solicitor that states
1) You are willing to go to court to fight this as far as it takes. (ok you're not, but they don't know this).
2) You will be presenting evidence from your phone service provider that will conclusively prove that the police, in this instance, were mistaken
3) Therefore they will lose and you will be claiming costs (albeit 50% - still comes out of their budget).
4) They are going to have to call the Policemen to give evidence.

99.9% of these cases involve a junior CPS solicitor reading a list of names out in court and a magistrate saying yeh or nay. With the above, this becomes a proper court case requiring proper evidence and tons of paperwork. It's going to cost them and will need signing off by a senior solicitor who is going to see that they have absolutely no evidence to prove guilt and in contrast you have evidence to prove inocence.
I'd be amazed if the CPS didn't drop the case there and then.

I know of many cases where a solicitor has simply made it plain to the CPS that they have a big fight on their hands. In all cases, the charge has either been negotiated down substantially or else dropped altogether.
Always remember - they have the same morons working for them as everyone else and they have the same accountants monitoring results. They can't afford to fight this case anymore than you can.