Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Question about mobile phone use while driving
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
TheManinBlack
I use my mobile phone as a sat nav whilst driving (I think a lot of people do).

I have it mounted in a cradle on the windscreen and it does not obstruct my view of the road.

A couple days ago, whilst driving, I touched the phone while it was cradled - and the police appear to have managed to take a photo of me doing this - and have sent me a 'notice of prosecution' letter through the door (together with the photo). The offence is for 'use of a mobile device while driving'.

From my reading of the law, I am actually allowed to touch the phone if it is cradled - is this correct?
typefish
Yes, as long as it isn't causing you to become distracted.

Like, for example, trying to change the radio station in the car, or messing with the climate controls.

This photo they've sent you, does it clearly show the phone in the cradle?
TheManinBlack
QUOTE (typefish @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 11:11) *
Yes, as long as it isn't causing you to become distracted.

Like, for example, trying to change the radio station in the car, or messing with the climate controls.

This photo they've sent you, does it clearly show the phone in the cradle?


Thanka for your prompt reply.

Yes the photo clearly shows the phone cradled on a windscreen holder, and I am looking at it whilst touching the screen.

The AskthePolice website (https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q955.htm) clearly says that if the phone is cradled it is not an offence. Why have they notified me they intend to prosecute therefore? The offence on their NIP carries a 6 point penalty!

I have read that they may want to try and get me on a lesser charge namely ‘failure to have proper control of vehicle’ - which carries a 3 point penalty - but I am not sure if the photo is in itself sufficient proof of that charge?

TIA
Logician
I would thank them for the photograph clearly showing that you were not using a handheld device, and therefore not committing the offence they cite.
I doubt the lesser charge would stick, with a windscreen holder, you would not even be directing your eyes away from the windscreen and all sat-nav users would be equally guilty.
The Rookie
QUOTE (TheManinBlack @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 10:58) *
The offence is for 'use of a mobile device while driving'.

if that is exactly what it says, then there is no such offence.

What is an offence is using a handheld mobile while driving.

I suspect you passed a speed camera who have extracted the still from their video and the numpty operator doesn’t understand what is and is not legal.
DancingDad
You say photo shows touching the phone.
Is this fingertip or gripping it?
The only reason (apart from muppetry) why they would think they could prosecute for holding the phone.
PASTMYBEST
The picture would answer a lot of questions
TheManinBlack
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 12:16) *
QUOTE (TheManinBlack @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 10:58) *
The offence is for 'use of a mobile device while driving'.

if that is exactly what it says, then there is no such offence.

What is an offence is using a handheld mobile while driving.

I suspect you passed a speed camera who have extracted the still from their video and the numpty operator doesn’t understand what is and is not legal.

Yes exactly - they took a pic cos I done for speeding - but then they asded a separate charge of ‘using a mobile device’, likely based in the still photo as you say.

To answer another question raised here - yes the photo shows I am only touching the device whilst it is cradled, not holding it.

As I say, their own website confirms no offence is conmitted so I think I have grounds to dispute this. Touching a mobile whilst cradled is akin to touching the radio player in your car whilst driving. There is no difference!

If they come back at me with the lesser charge of ‘failure to have proper control of vehicle’ - what would they have to prove? What they have to prove that I was weaving all over the place?
flexeh
Just playing devil's advocate here,

but if someone has caught speeding and messing with phone albeit cradled and states its their satnav, couldnt it be construe as driving without due care and attention? as they could say that you messing has resulted in you speeding and not paying attention to the speedlimits and other road users. especially if you try argusing its a satnav

Careless driving or driving without due care and attention or careless driving:

Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or
Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways.


Opinions?
TheManinBlack
QUOTE (flexeh @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 16:27) *
Just playing devil's advocate here,

but if someone has caught speeding and messing with phone albeit cradled and states its their satnav, couldnt it be construe as driving without due care and attention? as they could say that you messing has resulted in you speeding and not paying attention to the speedlimits and other road users. especially if you try argusing its a satnav

Careless driving or driving without due care and attention or careless driving:

Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or
Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways.


Opinions?


Interesting argument - however isn’t this a case of double jeopardy? If you get charged for speeding, you surely can’t then get charged again because you ended up speedong? I would have thought they have to choose one or the other?
TheManinBlack
Here are the photos.

It's not my finest piece of driving, I'll be honest, and I am quite embarrassed by the whole incident. I have a clean licence at the moment i.e. no points.

Just to be clear, I have received a notice of intention to prosecute for 3 separate charges, being as follows:

1. Speeding - 47mph in 30mph zone. Which I'll have to accept, I think. Looking at a 6 point penalty here I suspect, due to the extent of the excess speed.
2. Not wearing a seatbelt - no excuses, should have worn a seatbelt, I'll pay the fine. I was in a rush for an appointment but that's no excuse.
3. Using a mobile / handheld device - this is the one that I am disputing. The picture clearly shows the device is cradled and I am only touching it with my fingertips (i.e. not holding it). If they somehow are able to successfully charge me on this "count" as well, then that's another 6 point penalty...and I'm looking at immediate disqualification from driving - that's why it is so crucial that I get this right! I don't think this poor moment in my driving history should warrant disqualification, but on the face of it, that's apparently what I'm looking at, unless of course I am able to successfully dispute this 3rd charge.


Let me know what you guys think...and thanks again
Logician
QUOTE (flexeh @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 16:27) *
Just playing devil's advocate here, but if someone has caught speeding and messing with phone albeit cradled and states its their satnav, couldnt it be construe as driving without due care and attention? as they could say that you messing has resulted in you speeding and not paying attention to the speedlimits and other road users. especially if you try argusing its a satnav Careless driving or driving without due care and attention or careless driving: Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways. Opinions?


No, the offence of driving at a speed dangerous to the public was contained in the RTA 1972 but was abolished wef 1.12.77 by s.50 Criminal Law Act 1977, and was never part of the lesser careless driving offence. Since then courts in England have been resistant to convict for dangerous driving based on speed alone, (otherwise in Scotland) and it would certainly not be logical then to include it as an element of careless driving.

PASTMYBEST
Best advice tends to be, if you want to know the law don't ask the police. But this seems to me to be pretty accurate

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q955.htm
BaggieBoy
Looks like you have your hand wrapped around the phone, I suspect because the cradle is flimsy. So it's not a clear case of just pressing the screen whilst in the cradle.
fergies_army
QUOTE (TheManinBlack @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 09:58) *
it does not obstruct my view of the road.


Your picture suggests otherwise!
The Rookie
Indeed not the best location, bottom right is a much better placing, that said not relevant to the offence alleged.
NewJudge
QUOTE (flexeh @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 16:27) *
Careless driving or driving without due care and attention or careless driving:

Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or
Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways.


Opinions?

The latter (Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways) requires proof that somebody was actually inconvenienced by the inconsiderate driving.
samthecat
I stand to be corrected but as there are multiple offences there will only be one lot of points, so 6 max?
Logician
QUOTE (samthecat @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 22:52) *
I stand to be corrected but as there are multiple offences there will only be one lot of points, so 6 max?


Correct, handheld mobile phone use would be 6 points and speeding 5 or 6 points, as the offences are on the same occasion 6 points should result. If the police are persuaded to drop the mobile phone offence, on the basis that their photo shows no offence being committed, there would only be one endorsable offence, so they could issue two fixed penalties, for speeding and no seat belt, which would be the best result.

Jlc
47 in a 30 should qualify for a 3 points £100 fixed penalty. But it will be interesting what they offer.
Logician
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 08:14) *
47 in a 30 should qualify for a 3 points £100 fixed penalty. But it will be interesting what they offer.


The thing is they will not offer fixed penalties for two endorsable offences, so unless the mobile phone offence is dropped it, the case will have to go to court.

Jlc
QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 11:08) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 08:14) *
47 in a 30 should qualify for a 3 points £100 fixed penalty. But it will be interesting what they offer.


The thing is they will not offer fixed penalties for two endorsable offences, so unless the mobile phone offence is dropped it, the case will have to go to court.

Indeed, I was more remarking whether they actually do that...
notmeatloaf
The issue is that the CPS guidance states that the phone should've "held" for it to be an offence. Whether it needs to be held independently of any other support is debatable.

However, if you argue the toss with the police they will often just send it to court. And although the CPS guidance is to some extent partial, magistrates court can be a bit of a lottery and you would potentially need to appeal it to crown court.

As has been said it depends on what comes through. However, I would be surprised if the police drop the phone charge, although there's no harm writing a polite letter asking them to exercise discretion.
djtaylor
Isn't it up to the prosecution to prove that it is in fact a phone and not a satnav/dashcam/MP3 player etc.?

The picture as I remember it, was not exactly clear.

"Because we think it probably is" doesn't really seem to be "beyond reasonable doubt"

peterguk
QUOTE (djtaylor @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 18:46) *
Isn't it up to the prosecution to prove that it is in fact a phone and not a satnav/dashcam/MP3 player etc.?

The picture as I remember it, was not exactly clear.

"Because we think it probably is" doesn't really seem to be "beyond reasonable doubt"


Not difficult to ask the accused under oath what device he had sat in a phone cradle...
southpaw82
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 18:49) *
QUOTE (djtaylor @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 18:46) *
Isn't it up to the prosecution to prove that it is in fact a phone and not a satnav/dashcam/MP3 player etc.?

The picture as I remember it, was not exactly clear.

"Because we think it probably is" doesn't really seem to be "beyond reasonable doubt"


Not difficult to ask the accused under oath what device he had sat in a phone cradle...

If he chooses to give evidence.
Dwain
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 19:20) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 18:49) *
QUOTE (djtaylor @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 18:46) *
Isn't it up to the prosecution to prove that it is in fact a phone and not a satnav/dashcam/MP3 player etc.?

The picture as I remember it, was not exactly clear.

"Because we think it probably is" doesn't really seem to be "beyond reasonable doubt"


Not difficult to ask the accused under oath what device he had sat in a phone cradle...

If he chooses to give evidence.


So to assist the OP, what you are suggesting is that they plead not guilty to the mobile phone offense and get a solicitor to attend court and ask the procection to prove that it was in fact a mobile phone and not a sat nav. As they will not be in court they cannot be asked to give evidence?

Or have I got it wrong?
peterguk
OP claims is was in a cradle at all times. So doesn't matter if it was a mobile phone.
cp8759
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 11:07) *
OP claims is was in a cradle at all times. So doesn't matter if it was a mobile phone.

Depends, a court might say he was "holding" it even if it was in a cradle.

QUOTE (Dwain @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 10:29) *
So to assist the OP, what you are suggesting is that they plead not guilty to the mobile phone offense and get a solicitor to attend court and ask the procection to prove that it was in fact a mobile phone and not a sat nav. As they will not be in court they cannot be asked to give evidence?

Or have I got it wrong?

While technically the OP could attend court himself and simply state he does not wish to enter the witness box (no one can be compelled to give evidence in their own trial as they have a right to silence), sending a solicitor instead makes it harder to draw an "adverse inference" under section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
peterguk
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 11:34) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 11:07) *
OP claims is was in a cradle at all times. So doesn't matter if it was a mobile phone.

Depends, a court might say he was "holding" it even if it was in a cradle.


You'd be unlucky to end up with a court finding you were holding an object yet had nothing in your hand!
southpaw82
QUOTE (Dwain @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 10:29) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 19:20) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 18:49) *
QUOTE (djtaylor @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 18:46) *
Isn't it up to the prosecution to prove that it is in fact a phone and not a satnav/dashcam/MP3 player etc.?

The picture as I remember it, was not exactly clear.

"Because we think it probably is" doesn't really seem to be "beyond reasonable doubt"


Not difficult to ask the accused under oath what device he had sat in a phone cradle...

If he chooses to give evidence.


So to assist the OP, what you are suggesting is that they plead not guilty to the mobile phone offense and get a solicitor to attend court and ask the procection to prove that it was in fact a mobile phone and not a sat nav. As they will not be in court they cannot be asked to give evidence?

Or have I got it wrong?

I’m not suggesting anything. I am pointing out that an accused is not obliged to give evidence.
mdann52
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 11:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 11:34) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 11:07) *
OP claims is was in a cradle at all times. So doesn't matter if it was a mobile phone.

Depends, a court might say he was "holding" it even if it was in a cradle.


You'd be unlucky to end up with a court finding you were holding an object yet had nothing in your hand!


I mean, the photo could be inferred either way (IMO) - unfortunately, may well come down to the bench on the day, as is being proved here now!
DancingDad
QUOTE (mdann52 @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 22:04) *
........I mean, the photo could be inferred either way (IMO) - unfortunately, may well come down to the bench on the day, as is being proved here now!


If I were a magistrate I would be making my mind up from the video not a selected still...assuming there is a video.
djtaylor
Video or not, my question was whether it is up to the prosecution to prove that the device in question, whether in a cradle, hand held or whatever, was in fact a phone and not just "because it probably was"?
southpaw82
QUOTE (djtaylor @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 22:55) *
Video or not, my question was whether it is up to the prosecution to prove that the device in question, whether in a cradle, hand held or whatever, was in fact a phone and not just "because it probably was"?

Well, it’s an element of the offence, so unless admitted it’s up to the prosecution to prove it.
ford poplar
IMO already decided. If satnav is receiving real time data from a sat, it is a telecommunications device. The only question, was it hand-held at time of alleged incident?
The Rookie
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 03:22) *
IMO already decided. If satnav is receiving real time data from a sat, it is a telecommunications device.

I think it's any data it receives terrestrially that makes it a telecommunications device, there is an argument that receiving a time and location from a satellite isn't telecommunications which is usually classed as an exchange of information not necessarily just a random receipt.
morrisman
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 06:36) *
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 03:22) *
IMO already decided. If satnav is receiving real time data from a sat, it is a telecommunications device.

I think it's any data it receives terrestrially that makes it a telecommunications device, there is an argument that receiving a time and location from a satellite isn't telecommunications which is usually classed as an exchange of information not necessarily just a random receipt.

Most if not all phone based satnavs not only get position data from satellites but also receive traffic information from the internet which is ' data it receives terrestrially'



djtaylor
Out of curiosity then, is a phone without a SIM card a telecommunications device if it's not receiving data any more than a gun isa murder weapon, just not all the time?

There comes a point where the whole intent of the legislation is missed and the argument degrades into semantics and pedantry purely for the sake of legal face saving.
The Rookie
QUOTE (djtaylor @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 08:39) *
Out of curiosity then, is a phone without a SIM card a telecommunications device if it's not receiving data any more than a gun isa murder weapon, just not all the time?

There comes a point where the whole intent of the legislation is missed and the argument degrades into semantics and pedantry purely for the sake of legal face saving.

But owning a gun is subject to certain restrictions using a phone illegally requires use, if you cant use it illegally then there is no offence, poor example.
Steve_999
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 03:22) *
IMO already decided. If satnav is receiving real time data from a sat, it is a telecommunications device. The only question, was it hand-held at time of alleged incident?


I understood the definition to specify "interactive communication", i.e. sending as well as receiving.
djtaylor
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 08:37) *
QUOTE (djtaylor @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 08:39) *
Out of curiosity then, is a phone without a SIM card a telecommunications device if it's not receiving data any more than a gun isa murder weapon, just not all the time?

There comes a point where the whole intent of the legislation is missed and the argument degrades into semantics and pedantry purely for the sake of legal face saving.

But owning a gun is subject to certain restrictions using a phone illegally requires use, if you cant use it illegally then there is no offence, poor example.

Whether it's a poor example or not, feel free to answer the actual question! smile.gif

Replace gun with knife if you prefer but that part of the sentence is really of no relevance to the actual question that I asked.

The whole purpose of the legislation is to deal with the mischief of driving with one hand is it not? The police always maintained that they didn't need this legislation because being distracted and thus driving without due care and consideration is already covered. Thus basically it's about arguing over what specific electronics are inside a device than what the actual effect of the offence leads to.

I could hold a toy phone to my ear all day long and have a conversation with myself and yet NOT be prosecuted under this specific bit of legislation and if I were in such a photo as the one in this thread, even with it to my ear, the onus would still be on the prosecution to prove that it's an interactive communications device and not a piece of vacuum formed injection moulded toy.

If it has no SIM, it's not an interactive communications device or is it considered that it is but cannot do so? I'm genuinely interested in the opinion of those with much greater experience here.
southpaw82
QUOTE (djtaylor @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 11:10) *
If it has no SIM, it's not an interactive communications device or is it considered that it is but cannot do so? I'm genuinely interested in the opinion of those with much greater experience here.

Well, feel free to start your own thread in the flame pit then.
TheManinBlack
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 08:14) *
47 in a 30 should qualify for a 3 points £100 fixed penalty. But it will be interesting what they offer.


Thanks - but are we sure about this - the solicitor I spoke to now (although I have not hired him yet) said that it is 4-6 points for this level of speed?

QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 11:08) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 08:14) *
47 in a 30 should qualify for a 3 points £100 fixed penalty. But it will be interesting what they offer.


The thing is they will not offer fixed penalties for two endorsable offences, so unless the mobile phone offence is dropped it, the case will have to go to court.


They have informed me that they will not offer fixed penalties for the two endorseable penalties, as you say, and that the case is definitely going to court. I should await summons soon, apparently.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 30 May 2018 - 15:47) *
The issue is that the CPS guidance states that the phone should've "held" for it to be an offence. Whether it needs to be held independently of any other support is debatable.

However, if you argue the toss with the police they will often just send it to court. And although the CPS guidance is to some extent partial, magistrates court can be a bit of a lottery and you would potentially need to appeal it to crown court.

As has been said it depends on what comes through. However, I would be surprised if the police drop the phone charge, although there's no harm writing a polite letter asking them to exercise discretion.


You guessed right, they are not dropping the case and are taking it to court

QUOTE (samthecat @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 22:52) *
I stand to be corrected but as there are multiple offences there will only be one lot of points, so 6 max?


That sounds promising - do we have source for this? Is this enshrined in case law?

I will definitely be going to court - but if I can leave court with just a 6 penalty (i.e. avoid disqualification), then at this stage, I would say I would be happy!

QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 01:57) *
QUOTE (samthecat @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 22:52) *
I stand to be corrected but as there are multiple offences there will only be one lot of points, so 6 max?


Correct, handheld mobile phone use would be 6 points and speeding 5 or 6 points, as the offences are on the same occasion 6 points should result. If the police are persuaded to drop the mobile phone offence, on the basis that their photo shows no offence being committed, there would only be one endorsable offence, so they could issue two fixed penalties, for speeding and no seat belt, which would be the best result.


Thanks very much for the advise. Again, just wondering if you perhaps have a source on this - just so I can read up more about this - thank you!
southpaw82
QUOTE (TheManinBlack @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 14:55) *
QUOTE (samthecat @ Mon, 28 May 2018 - 22:52) *
I stand to be corrected but as there are multiple offences there will only be one lot of points, so 6 max?


That sounds promising - do we have source for this? Is this enshrined in case law?


No, statute: s 28(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988:

QUOTE
Where a person is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of two or more offences committed on the same occasion and involving obligatory endorsement, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them (so that if the convictions are on different occasions the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offences on the later occasion or occasions shall be restricted accordingly).

Jlc
QUOTE (TheManinBlack @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 14:55) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 08:14) *
47 in a 30 should qualify for a 3 points £100 fixed penalty. But it will be interesting what they offer.

Thanks - but are we sure about this - the solicitor I spoke to now (although I have not hired him yet) said that it is 4-6 points for this level of speed?

On it's own then it would normally see a fixed penalty offer. But circumstances different here.

As the potential phone offence is 6 points, then if both offences were convicted then a maximum of 6 would apply anyway as above. But on the basis that the phone offence 'failed' then one could ask the bench to consider a fixed penalty equivalent for the speeding. (Otherwise it would be in the 4-6 points range, but realistically 5 or 6)
TheManinBlack
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 16:05) *
QUOTE (TheManinBlack @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 14:55) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 08:14) *
47 in a 30 should qualify for a 3 points £100 fixed penalty. But it will be interesting what they offer.

Thanks - but are we sure about this - the solicitor I spoke to now (although I have not hired him yet) said that it is 4-6 points for this level of speed?

On it's own then it would normally see a fixed penalty offer. But circumstances different here.

As the potential phone offence is 6 points, then if both offences were convicted then a maximum of 6 would apply anyway as above. But on the basis that the phone offence 'failed' then one could ask the bench to consider a fixed penalty equivalent for the speeding. (Otherwise it would be in the 4-6 points range, but realistically 5 or 6)


Thank you - that sounds reassuring. I am tempted to just plead guilty to all 3 offences on the basis I would like avoid a court hearing and just get a max of 6 points anyway.

I just spoke with another solicitor (again, I didn't hire him, just got initial advice) - but he said that the 3 charges are 3 separate offences and the prosecution can push for a full 12 points to be dished out (6 points for mobile phone and 6 points for speeding) and the court has the discretion to apply such sentencing if it sees fit and disqualify me. Is that right?? His advice would seem to contradict s28(4) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988...
Logician
QUOTE (TheManinBlack @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 17:12) *
I just spoke with another solicitor (again, I didn't hire him, just got initial advice) - but he said that the 3 charges are 3 separate offences and the prosecution can push for a full 12 points to be dished out (6 points for mobile phone and 6 points for speeding) and the court has the discretion to apply such sentencing if it sees fit and disqualify me. Is that right?? His advice would seem to contradict s28(4) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988...


Have a look at s.28(5), the court does indeed have such discretion but it is very rarely exercised, I fact I was once talking to a very experienced court legal advisor who was quite unaware of it! It is vanishingly unlikely to apply in your case, was the solicitor by any chance suggesting that with his knowledge and expertise he might be able to avoid such a dreadful outcome for you?

Redivi
It may only be six points but you would still have to disclose the multiple convictions to your insurance company

Speeding offences only have a trivial effect on your premium
Mobile phone use is regarded much more seriously

Pleading guilty when the prosecution's own photograph shows the phone in its holder makes no sense
Churchmouse
QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 17:38) *
It may only be six points but you would still have to disclose the multiple convictions to your insurance company

Speeding offences only have a trivial effect on your premium
Mobile phone use is regarded much more seriously

Pleading guilty when the prosecution's own photograph shows the phone in its holder makes no sense

On the other hand, I can picture the "official" triumphalist tweet and accompanying sanctimonious screed already...

--Churchmouse
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.