fixed penalty notice for allegedly using a mobile phone!!!, advice needed. Options

[bartmanuk]

Hi,

As the title says, this happened on 21-01-2006 whilst driving on the M2 in Kent, I told the officer he was mistaken but he still issued the ticket, he told me he had video evidence of the offence, so i asked to see it, and he refused, telling me i would have to make this request in writing within 28 days.
I therefore sent a letter saying i intended to contest the allegation and requested that all evidence they intended to rely on in court should be provided to me, including the video evidence, in accordance with the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996.
I then received a letter back thanking me for my letter explaining why i consider that the fixed penalty notice should not be enforced; it also went on to say how the notice can only be dealt with in one of two ways:either by paying the fixed penalty or applying for for a court hearing.
I then wrote back saying that i was not explaining why the FPN should not be enforced but to request copies of evidence that they intended to use.
They then wrote back to tell me that if i wanted a court hearing i needed to sent back the signed FPN, which I did, along with another letter reminding them of the evidence I requested in accordance with the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996.
Next i received a summons dated 27-06-2006 with a court date for 31-07-2006, then as i began to read the summons i noticed under the offence section that they put that i was driving the police vehicle and not my own car, it also had the same details of the police vehicle under the statement of facts too. I sent off the form with the not guilty plea filled out and waited for a new date.
Then on 02-08-2006 I received a letter from Kent Police saying that i received a summons and unfortunately the statement of facts was incorrect as the wording did not transfer, and they had attached a new statement of facts, but this new one also says i was driving the police vehicle. Then the next day i got my new court date along with copies of two witness statements from the two officers who pulled me over, but no video evidence.

Now im sure i will win this case anyway, but does anybody know if these mistakes on the summons are good enough to get the case dropped?

all advice appriciated,

BM

[Advertisement]

[bartmanuk]

BTTT!!!

is there anyne on here that can help me please???

BM

[Haddaway And Shi...]

From the ticket there will be a time and date, to prove you were not using the phone, ask your airtime provider with an itemised bill for that day. If you were not using the phone and they still proceed, plead not guilty using the details from you airtime provider.

[ST24]

i noticed under the offence section that they put that i was driving the police vehicle and not my own car, it also had the same details of the police vehicle under the statement of facts too.
...
...
Then on 02-08-2006 I received a letter from Kent Police saying that i received a summons and unfortunately the statement of facts was incorrect as the wording did not transfer, and they had attached a new statement of facts, but this new one also says i was driving the police vehicle.

hi,
i am certainly not a specialist and this definitely is a weird one...

i know that minor mistakes ("typographical errors" like time, car registration, spelling in your name, etc.) may be corrected under the "slip" rule.
indicating you are driving the wrong car probably is a different kettle of fish! are they giving the full details of the (police) car they say you were driving?
maybe you could scan the summons, delete all personal details and post it here...

another option is to go the disclosure way... the prosecution is normally obliged to provide you with all the evidence they plan to use in court. from what i could read on these boards, they very often do not and this prevents you from preparing your defence accordingly and from having a fair trial...
if you say "no" while the two BIB say "yes", guess who will win.
you need to get the video disclosed.
now, requesting disclosure before a trial requires some rules to be followed. a search on "disclosure" should put you on the right track.

hope this helps.
cheers,

[V70]

From the ticket there will be a time and date, to prove you were not using the phone, ask your airtime provider with an itemised bill for that day. If you were not using the phone and they still proceed, plead not guilty using the details from you airtime provider.

This will prove nothing as you do not need to be connected in a call to prove the offence. You simply need to have it in your hand and the engine running.

You have 2 officers apparently who have seen this, you have an uphill fight on your hands.

If I had hold of my phone I would have paid the £30 NFPN and saved myself an hefty fine and court costs.

[Insider]

This will prove nothing as you do not need to be connected in a call to prove the offence. You simply need to have it in your hand and the engine running.

What a load of misinformed bollox. (scuse my french)

That is NOT what the law says.

What the LAW says

[V70]

This will prove nothing as you do not need to be connected in a call to prove the offence. You simply need to have it in your hand and the engine running.

What a load of misinformed bollox. (scuse my french)

That is NOT what the law says.

What the LAW says

I don't speak French do you are excused however the act stated 'use' it does not say dail a number and call a friend.

Until case law is estabishished on this holding will be enough, whether reading the phone book or sending text messages.

[Insider]

This will prove nothing as you do not need to be connected in a call to prove the offence. You simply need to have it in your hand and the engine running.

What a load of misinformed bollox. (scuse my french)

That is NOT what the law says.

What the LAW says

I don't speak French do you are excused however the act stated 'use' it does not say dail a number and call a friend.

Until case law is estabishished on this holding will be enough, whether reading the phone book or sending text messages.

Once again, you are spouting misinformed information.

The LAW says.

© "interactive communication function" includes the following:

(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages;

(ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;

(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and

(iv) providing access to the internet;

It says nothing about "holding" the phone is an offence in itself.

Holding the phone to use one of the above ICF's is an offence. holding it (the phone) in itself isn't.

And the case law doesn't matter. It's not an offence, hence it's perfectly clear what parliament intended.

[Ziltro]

Just a thought:
How can they prove (beyond a reasonable doubt?) that the device you were alledgedly using was opperating on a frequency as listed and therefore is not what the law calls a 'two-way radio'?

[CrossFox]

Bartmanuk,

It is up to the prosecution to prove that you were using the mobile as a form of interactive communication. If they cannot prove this, then you walk free.

It is not enough to think/believe/hope that a crime is being committed, they have to prove it.

If you were not making a call/sending or receiving text or data, then they can prove nothing.

Even with video, all they could prove is that you had the mobile to your ear - not an offence, ( although they should charge you with driving without due care etc. if you had mobile to your ear - similar to eating an apple ).

CPS should have told plod to sod off, as this case does not have 51% probability of success.

Stick to your guns, tell them nothing and watch the case fall apart.

[LancashireLad]

they can prove it by:

Officer1 "he was making a call"
Officer2 "I corroborate"

Therefore it is up to you to DISPROVE it. A magistrate will believe the word of two officers over a civilian. If you can get the video from them then this should help. If you can get an airtime log from your provider then you can prove that you were not making a call.

I imagine it is far too late now to charge you with any other offence. Anyway, since the other offences would be far more severe you have a good chance of malicious prosecution should they decide to try it on.

This post has been edited by LancashireLad: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 - 15:44

[Peter_D]

If a driver is holding his phone and reading text messages he does not need to be connected at that time as the messages are in the phone. This makes the driver guilty of using a mobile phone whilst driving so the airtime log is not proof of not using the phone. Regards Peter