Sunshine76
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 00:10
My friend was allegedly using his mobile phone in stationary traffic and someone has submitted Dashcam Footage to that effect to the Police. He has been told he will receive 6 penalty points and a fine as a result.
The police won’t share the dashcam footage until they get confirmation as to who was driving the car. The sun-visor was apparently down so the drivers face couldn’t be seen on the footage (the little info the police did verbally give).
Any suggestions on way forward ?
Thanks
The Rookie
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 06:16
Name the driver, not doing so is a separate criminal offence.
The Police will likely issue a fixed penalty but if the driver believes they weren’t using the phone they can not accept that and take it to court and challenge the evidence.
There is no entitlement to see any evidence at this stage.
Sunshine76
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 14:15
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 07:16)
Name the driver, not doing so is a separate criminal offence.
The Police will likely issue a fixed penalty but if the driver believes they weren’t using the phone they can not accept that and take it to court and challenge the evidence.
There is no entitlement to see any evidence at this stage.
Ok, thanks
Dwain
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 14:21
Dependent upon what they are charged with, and what they were actually using the phone for (Don't lie) there may be a get out of jail clause. A recent judgement has clarified the law and IF the phone was not being used for interactive communication purposes you may try pleading not guilty.
People far more knowledgeable than me will no doubt comment.
Dwain
Redivi
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 14:29
How easy that is depends whether the phone is up to the driver's ear
Raises another question though - is listening to a voicemail from earlier an interactive communication ?
Must admit that I get paranoid nowadays if I'm seen just having a hand to my ear
Jlc
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 14:36
QUOTE (Dwain @ Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 15:21)
A recent judgement has clarified the law
There's a thread
here. (DPP v Barreto)
Logician
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 18:27
If by any chance this occurred in Scotland the unsigned route should be considered.
Sunshine76
Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 18:00
Thank you so much gents - I’ve suggested he speaks to a specialist solicitor based on the legislation interpretation from the case shared above
Mad Mick V
Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 13:21
+
Regina v Eldarf: 23 Sep 2018 (Harrow Crown Court)
The motorist, while driving, had been using his mobile phone to listen to music which was stored in the phone. In evidence he demonstrated how he changed the music tracks on his phone which he held in his hand, using his thumb. The issue was whether that conduct constituted using a mobile phone within the meaning of Regulation 110 and Section 41D. The court ruled that it did not because it did not involve any external communication.
Mick
Sunshine76
Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 17:00
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 14:21)
+
Regina v Eldarf: 23 Sep 2018 (Harrow Crown Court)
The motorist, while driving, had been using his mobile phone to listen to music which was stored in the phone. In evidence he demonstrated how he changed the music tracks on his phone which he held in his hand, using his thumb. The issue was whether that conduct constituted using a mobile phone within the meaning of Regulation 110 and Section 41D. The court ruled that it did not because it did not involve any external communication.
Mick
Thank you
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.