PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Mobile phone ticket at taxi rank, Mobile phone ticket at taxi rank
BladeS1
post Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 13:53
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,952



Hi,

My brother has been issued a ticket for having his phone in his hand whilst at the train station taxi rank by the transport police. It’s a single line taxi rank at the train station that goes in a circle, he said the driver infront moves forward and he moved forward one car length with phone in hand stopped and put his handbrake up. Next thing a police officer is issuing him a verbal NIP and took his details. He is expecting a ticket through the post. He acknowledges he should not have had phone in hand but he wasn’t on a call or texting. I personally think it’s harsh. From what I can see the taxi line at the train station isn’t a public road. I’ve just google mapped and the public road stops at the point of entry to the station taxi rank. It’s got two large no entry signs except for taxis so can the police issue the NIP? As I was under the impression they can only issue if it’s a public road.

Thanks

Nikki
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7  
Start new topic
Replies (120 - 130)
Advertisement
post Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 13:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
BladeS1
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 21:51
Post #121


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,952



Hi both ,

That’s interesting so he can ask to be sentenced at FPN level that’s good to know. How about if he continues to please not guilty and is found guilty? I guess it will be the 3 points and fine.

Basically they when he confirmed he wanted the matter to go to court the Police must have realised that the original charge wouldn’t stand given the Barreto case so changed to not in proper control rather than dropping it.

Thanks for all your help.

Nikki
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 22:50
Post #122


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (BladeS1 @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 21:51) *
That’s interesting so he can ask to be sentenced at FPN level that’s good to know.

He can't ask for it, as such. He can explain what has happened and ask the court if they might like to consider sentencing him at the Fixed Penalty level given the circumstances. I'm sure you understand that it's slightly different.

QUOTE (BladeS1 @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 21:51) *
Basically they when he confirmed he wanted the matter to go to court the Police must have realised that the original charge wouldn’t stand given the Barreto case so changed to not in proper control rather than dropping it.

Was your brother ever warned that he might be charged with "not in proper control"? Others may like to comment but to me the two offences (that and using a mobile phone) are somewhat different in nature. It seems to me a little unjust that he should have been offered a fixed penalty for one offence and when it was realised he may let a court decide whether he is guilty or not, that charge is dropped and he is charged with something else. This seems especially so if he had no indication that an alternative charge might be laid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 07:32
Post #123


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,196
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



While I don't disagree with the above on a moral level, S1 of the RTOA doesn't require a warning for either offence in question here (scroll down to where it says Section 41D RTA in column 1 in the link at bottom for the OP).

Additionally S1 RTOA says "that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration" So arguably as long as a warning is given for any of the long list of applicable offences is given, a prosecution can be commenced for any other of them which could be used to counter any argument about expectation of which offence may be prosecuted on the same set of facts. So if they had just stopped him for 'using a phone' then arguably they could prosecute for any relevant offence.

Unless anyone knows of any case law that contradicts that.

For the OP, a warning is required for any offence in Schedule 1 (link below) where is says section 1 in column 3. 41D RTA (which covers not in control and mobile phone use) do not.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/1

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 07:38


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 08:00
Post #124


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



QUOTE (BladeS1 @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 21:51) *
. How about if he continues to please not guilty and is found guilty? I guess it will be the 3 points and fine.


Plus costs and 'victim surcharge'. Assume around £500 but varies
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BladeS1
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 10:24
Post #125


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,952



Hi all,

He’s been to court and they’ve laid it on quite thick basically saying very difficult to prove a case against a police officer also tha large fine with going to court looking at at least £600 and despite me telling him to stick to not guilty pleas he’s gone and accepted 3 points and £72 fine! They did ask why he didn’t bring representation.

He’s relieved it’s over.

Thanks for everyone’s help on this matter.

For anyone who ho can afford representation it is worth defended to the end.

Keep safe all and take care

Thanks

Nikki
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 10:30
Post #126


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,196
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



That I think was the pragmatic way to handle it, 3 points is paint by £72 is a LOT less than losing at trial.

Not sure he had to prove any case against the officer, more disprove a case alleged, but we know they consider the officer's opinion when they should not.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 11:01
Post #127


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 10:30) *
That I think was the pragmatic way to handle it, 3 points is paint by £72 is a LOT less than losing at trial.

Not sure he had to prove any case against the officer, more disprove a case alleged, but we know they consider the officer's opinion when they should not.


Sad but true. We have a judicial system that is increasingly more 'commercial' than 'judicial' and the consequential 'justice' can be skewed accordingly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 11:43
Post #128


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 10:30) *
That I think was the pragmatic way to handle it, 3 points is paint by £72 is a LOT less than losing at trial.

It's also one heck of an improvement over the 6 point / £200 FPN.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
speedfighter23
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 14:01
Post #129


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 477
Joined: 29 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,999



Good job. You sufficiently annoyed the police and the judiciary that they were going to make the 'carless driving' stick one way or another when they realised they couldn't get you for the Mobile Phone offence as you refused to accept it.

As you said, it was risky to go all in for the Non-Guilty to the end, and they offered you sort of a 'plea' deal which the defendant took to end the aggravation and risk of paying much more money.

The Police/Judiciary are usually quite surprised when someone defends themselves, they usually prefer to just deal with it easily with an FPN, and if the person feels they are not wrong they generally are scared to fight the 'law'.

Unlike speeding, careless driving/mobile phone driving is harder to convict unless they have video evidence of you committing the crime, which they didn't, and it was relying on Police testimony which as they say, would be hard to convince the judge that the Police officer was not saying the truth when they are cross-examined.

Would they have dropped it if you insisted on going Not-Guilty to the end I wonder? If you had a lawyer/yourselves were skilled in cross examining the officer, it would have been quite an interesting outcome.



This post has been edited by speedfighter23: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 14:05


--------------------
Police Speeding Fines - Police 1 - speedfighter23 0
TFL traffic contraventions 0 - speedfighter23 2
Kensington and Chelsea 0 parking contraventions - speedfighter23 1
Brighton and Hove parking 0 - speedfighter23 1
Private PCN - Private Parking Solutions Limited 0 - speedfighter23 1

Tyre Puncture Pothole Claims:
0 Buckinghamshire Council - speedfighter23 1
0 TFL - speedfighter23 1

Result Pending:

1 Islington Council tyre puncture claim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BladeS1
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 17:46
Post #130


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,952



QUOTE (speedfighter23 @ Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 14:01) *
Good job. You sufficiently annoyed the police and the judiciary that they were going to make the 'carless driving' stick one way or another when they realised they couldn't get you for the Mobile Phone offence as you refused to accept it.

As you said, it was risky to go all in for the Non-Guilty to the end, and they offered you sort of a 'plea' deal which the defendant took to end the aggravation and risk of paying much more money.

The Police/Judiciary are usually quite surprised when someone defends themselves, they usually prefer to just deal with it easily with an FPN, and if the person feels they are not wrong they generally are scared to fight the 'law'.

Unlike speeding, careless driving/mobile phone driving is harder to convict unless they have video evidence of you committing the crime, which they didn't, and it was relying on Police testimony which as they say, would be hard to convince the judge that the Police officer was not saying the truth when they are cross-examined.

Would they have dropped it if you insisted on going Not-Guilty to the end I wonder? If you had a lawyer/yourselves were skilled in cross examining the officer, it would have been quite an interesting outcome.


Hi,

I am thinking had he had representation it would have been dropped he’s still pleased with the result and relieved it’s over. He’s not that confident of a person to start challenging those in “authority” even though we practiced had it been I would have started quoting the barreto case Etc and asked to go to next stage but I’m not reliant on my licence for a job so it’s easy for me to say. They probably had targets to avoid going to court etc so we’re willing to give a small fine.
There should be more audits of cases without representation to make sure they are judging fairly not everyone can afford expensive solicitors.

Also the way they behaved when they lost his SJP papers and told him to respond to the disqualification hearing twice had we not sent everything recorded delivery he probably would be in a worse off position. From this experience I can see they get away with a lot.

Thanks

Nikki


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BladeS1
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 19:17
Post #131


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,952



Thanks all.

He is very happy with the outcome as 3 points and £72 fin is much better than what was offered on the original FPN.

I would like to thank all that have contributed to this thread especially those who have provided ongoing support from the beginning to the end (TheRookie, cp8759, NewJudge to name a few) with very much needed guidance even during the pandemic with my panic stricken posts!

Thank you

Nikki
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:27
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here