Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Mobile phone NIP but I wasn't using phone
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Mr Incredible
So last night on the way back from work I was driving in crawling raffic and my mobile was poking into my right thigh.

I used my right hand to remove it from my pocket, allways kept one hand on the wheel and I drive an automatic BMW.

rested it on my lap and when I went to lift it onto the recess bulkhead where the sat nav thing is, I prefer it there because I can see out corner of my eye on reflection who it is thats calling.

I have a bluetooth hands free by the way

At that point police officer ran out an started banging on my window and got me to pull over.

Anyway I was given an NIP which is £100 and 3 points on my license, if I accept it.

Sometime after the event last night I called my mobile phone provider O2 who have given me a breakdown of call log by email. 

The incident at written on the ticket is at 18:00, the times in and around that where I had actually used my phone are 16:06 and 19:06.

The call log proves I was not using my phone.

When I stepped out of the car the officer asked me "were you making an emergency call on your mobile" I responded "no".

Later when he tried to get me to sign his slip I read what he'd wrote and asked why he had not recorded I had told him I wasn't using my phone, he said that I'd only said I wasn't making an emergerncy call.

I re-asserted that I hadn't used the phone at all.

Does anyone here have any experience of this, the officer was quite vile and it seems like a crap shoot which presumably most people just cough up and pay because they are afraid of going to court.

I don't idealy want to go to court but will if I must. So I'm hoping to be able to convice the Traffic Criminal Justice Unit before hand not to waste tax payers money.

Any advice welcome

Jlc
QUOTE (Mr Incredible @ Fri, 20 Feb 2015 - 20:53) *
The call log proves I was not using my phone.

Unfortunately it doesn't. It may prove there was no call but the legislation doesn't refer to calls.

Anyway, paying the FP will see the end of the matter but will see your insurance premium increase for 3 or 4 years.

Assuming this is not Scotland, pleading not guilty has it's risks as prosecution costs for a trial can be large.

Did the officer see the phone in your hand?
peterguk
So you accept he saw you holding your phone?
Logician
Sorry, but I think you are just going to have to suck this one up. The call log does not prove you were not using your phone, you might have been reading an earlier text or writing one you never sent. To be honest, if you used it at 16.06 and 19.06 you are going to struggle to convince the court it was switched off at 18.00, particularly since you say you were putting it into a position where you can see who is calling, which is not something you can do with a dead phone. The officer clearly saw you handling the phone, and while "using" is not defined by the legislation that is going to be enough for most courts, I would say. Unless you are in Scotland, losing in court will see you paying costs as well as the fine, and the guideline for those is £620. Unless you like gambling at very long odds, you are best to accept the fixed penalty.
Kickaha
I would urge members to have a look at the OPs previous thread before responding.
peterguk
QUOTE (Kickaha @ Fri, 20 Feb 2015 - 23:28) *
I would urge members to have a look at the OPs previous thread before responding.


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=67464&st=0

QUOTE (Mr Incredible @ Fri, 20 Feb 2015 - 20:53) *
Didn't even switch it on


QUOTE (Mr Incredible @ Fri, 20 Feb 2015 - 20:53) *
I used my right hand to remove it from my pocket, rested it on my lap and when I went to lift it onto the recess bulkhead where the sat nav thing is because I can see out corner of my eye on reflection who it is thats calling.


Out of interest, why would you position it so you can see who is calling when it's switched off? wacko.gif
cbr786
if you get summons go to court. Going to court will not increase your points. The court will give you a means test form to fill out before the court trial date. The means form is very important it will help the Magistrate decide on how much to fine you if found guilty! usually if your means test form shows you have more out goings then money coming in they will only fine you the same fine as if you had accepted the FPN. They will add on court costs these are normally under £50.

Prepare your defence very carefully. Speak clearly and calmly in court. If the prosecution and you have arranged to have the Police Officer in question at court then you will have a chance to cross examine him.

Ask him leading questions ideally YES and NO answers.

!) Ask him did he see you using your phone to make a phone call ? tell him to answer YES or NO
2) Ask him does he remember what type of phone you had brand make etc?
3) Ask him did he take you up on your offer to examine the phone to see if any calls had been made or received and did he examine the phone if YES what where his findings? IF NO then why did he not do so ?
4) Ask him how did he know by not physically examining the handset that it was working and not battery dead?
5) tell him the phone fell from its cradle and was causing a hazard in the foot well pedal area you simply picked it up and reattached it OR placed it in a secure area at no time where you using the device and no time you transmitted or received any data from the device and you phone records will prove that.

6) PUT it to him that in failing to examine the phone he can not say 100% that you where using the phone to transmit data via voice/text/imaging etc so you create a doubt .

You need to remain calm and try to create a DOUBT. Once you create this doubt raise it to the court that a doubt has been created as they cannot convict if a genuine doubt is present.

I too am in similar predicament however I was stationary inner city behind a car at traffic lights which where red and I was accused of using my hand held device to take a still image! although this was not verified by the officer concerned it is just his work against mine. To make matters worse my car was not running at the time as it is equipped with stop start technology!

Hence by definition I need to be in a vehicle that is running ? where does the law come in in on stop start technology as for all purposes in traffic engine is OFF not running .

Is it really in the justice services interest to proceed with this ill conceived attempts to generate revenue and cause bad feelings with the Police and JOE PUBLIC. I mean driving and talking away phone to ear is something else compared to moving the object A_to B in quick action in slow moving or stopped traffic similar to changing a CD in the head UNIT or playing with heating settings or other functions in the car.
southpaw82
QUOTE (Kickaha @ Fri, 20 Feb 2015 - 23:28) *
I would urge members to have a look at the OPs previous thread before responding.

I'd advise him not to call me a troll...
peterguk
QUOTE (cbr786 @ Fri, 20 Feb 2015 - 23:57) *
tell him the phone fell from its cradle and was causing a hazard in the foot well pedal area you simply picked it up and reattached it


Why suggest the OP lies under oath?

QUOTE (cbr786 @ Fri, 20 Feb 2015 - 23:57) *
PUT it to him that in failing to examine the phone he can not say 100% that you where using the phone to transmit data via voice/text/imaging etc so you create a doubt


He doesn't have to be transmitting data via voice/text/imaging etcto be guilty of the offence.
cbr786
He doesn't have to be transmitting data via voice/text/imaging etcto be guilty of the offence.


TRUE but failing to examine the phone how did the Officer know it was still working at that time? The phone battery could have died and it was nothing more then a object similar to a CD in a car or a tape cassette ETC.

In response to telling people to lie I do not condone Lying under Oath I merely suggested he explain why he moved it from his lap to the dash area as in my view a phone on the dash in a cubby hole type area is safer more secure then having such objects on your lap in an event of sharp braking the item on the lap can become a projectile which could possibly get jammed in the workings of the pedal cluster of the vehicle.
Logician
Police invariably decline to examine a phone in these circumstances it seems from posts here.
southpaw82
QUOTE (cbr786 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 00:24) *
I merely suggested he explain why he moved it from his lap to the dash area

No, you didn't. Don't pull stuff like that here.

666
QUOTE (cbr786 @ Fri, 20 Feb 2015 - 23:57) *
if you get summons go to court. Going to court will not increase your points. The court will give you a means test form to fill out before the court trial date. The means form is very important it will help the Magistrate decide on how much to fine you if found guilty! usually if your means test form shows you have more out goings then money coming in they will only fine you the same fine as if you had accepted the FPN. They will add on court costs these are normally under £50.


The guideline for costs is a £620 minimum, not £50!
The Rookie
There is so much wrong with your post cbr, it's hard to know where to start, but suggesting someone commits perjury over a minor motoring offence is pretty stupid, then telling him costs will be less than £50, when they start at £85 for an uncontested guilty plea and go to £620 for a basic trial hopefully tells the OP how good your advice is(n't).
Spenny
Reading a recent post at MSE on the same subject the OP still has not grasped that simply handling a mobile phone while in control of the car (not even moving) can be deemed to constitute using a mobile phone.

The OP has said plenty of things that confirm that he was handling the mobile phone, and the magistrates will be listening for the OP to refute what the officer says he saw - for the officer to come across and bang on the window suggests that the officer had seen something which he genuinely believed was a person using the phone. Unfortunately for the OP, just about everything they have said about what they were doing tends to confirm that the policeman did see him using the phone, and the half denials (one hand on the wheel, connected via bluetooth, "off" but clearly active suggesting he means on the lock screen, glancing at phone) will suggest to the magistrates that the policeman did see him using his phone.

In court, I would think that the magistrates would accept moving an uncomfortable object out of the pocket into a sensible place might be acceptable behaviour, not constituting using, but it really needs the OP to be clear about what he really was doing at the time the officer saw him, to understand whether it is a plausible misunderstanding or will simply come across as a feeble excuse to the magistrates (regardless of the honest view of the OP). In terms of testimony, he has to consider that when he is in the dock being questioned, can he answer honestly and truthfully about what he was doing without dropping himself in it with comments that confirm his active using of the phone (so no irrelevant discussion of automatics and hands free systems). Bear in mind that the police would probably suggest that if you had a problem with the phone - or any object - uncomfortable or loose then the correct action is to pull into the side of the road and sort the problem out, not continue driving (and retrieving objects rolling around in the footwell on the move would be deemed particularly dangerous and worse than reaching into a pocket in my book).
trucker-chris
All I can say is this is bad luck but the fact of the matter isthat touching your phone regardless of whether it is switched on or you are using it is an offence whilst driving....
The law doesn't differentiate between using it or not
I have a Bluetooth hands free kit and I never touch my phone or try not to when making calls I try and use Siri....
However when Siri hasn't worked I have had to use my phone i.e. touch it whilst driving but I feel extremely uncomfortable doing this especially after reading this....I think the golden rule is don't touch your phone whilst driving in any circumstances
Just pay up and take the hit that would be my advice
Just put it down to experience
George Carter
QUOTE (cbr786 @ Fri, 20 Feb 2015 - 23:57) *
if you get summons go to court. Going to court will not increase your points. The court will give you a means test form to fill out before the court trial date. The means form is very important it will help the Magistrate decide on how much to fine you if found guilty! usually if your means test form shows you have more out goings then money coming in they will only fine you the same fine as if you had accepted the FPN. They will add on court costs these are normally under £50.

Prepare your defence very carefully. Speak clearly and calmly in court. If the prosecution and you have arranged to have the Police Officer in question at court then you will have a chance to cross examine him.

Ask him leading questions ideally YES and NO answers.

!) Ask him did he see you using your phone to make a phone call ? tell him to answer YES or NO
2) Ask him does he remember what type of phone you had brand make etc?
3) Ask him did he take you up on your offer to examine the phone to see if any calls had been made or received and did he examine the phone if YES what where his findings? IF NO then why did he not do so ?
4) Ask him how did he know by not physically examining the handset that it was working and not battery dead?
5) tell him the phone fell from its cradle and was causing a hazard in the foot well pedal area you simply picked it up and reattached it OR placed it in a secure area at no time where you using the device and no time you transmitted or received any data from the device and you phone records will prove that.

6) PUT it to him that in failing to examine the phone he can not say 100% that you where using the phone to transmit data via voice/text/imaging etc so you create a doubt .

You need to remain calm and try to create a DOUBT. Once you create this doubt raise it to the court that a doubt has been created as they cannot convict if a genuine doubt is present.

I too am in similar predicament however I was stationary inner city behind a car at traffic lights which where red and I was accused of using my hand held device to take a still image! although this was not verified by the officer concerned it is just his work against mine. To make matters worse my car was not running at the time as it is equipped with stop start technology!

Hence by definition I need to be in a vehicle that is running ? where does the law come in in on stop start technology as for all purposes in traffic engine is OFF not running .

Is it really in the justice services interest to proceed with this ill conceived attempts to generate revenue and cause bad feelings with the Police and JOE PUBLIC. I mean driving and talking away phone to ear is something else compared to moving the object A_to B in quick action in slow moving or stopped traffic similar to changing a CD in the head UNIT or playing with heating settings or other functions in the car.


I do hope you're not going to claim you weren't driving.
Richy320
Unfortunately OP you have little chance of stopping this.

You have to remember that in the great pyramid of evil-doers you sit right at the pinnacle. You are a motorist.

The powers that be, however, give you the opportunity to assuage your guilt by handing over all your money although it's not exactly optional. You are a cash cow, simple as that.

I know all about article 48 of the European Charter of Human Rights

Article 48
Presumption of innocence and right of defence
1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
2. Respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed.

Ridden roughshod over by the government of this once great nation.

Plod says you did it ergo you are guilty.

Magistrates (they need to get out more) believe plod because we all know plod never lie.

Why should we lie comes the cry from the plod masses, we have no need to? Simple answer is you shouldn't, but it has never stopped you in the past!

Don't waste your time trying to prove a negative - how can you prove something that didn't happen? Bend over, take it like a man and add to that ever growing pile of resentment.
Gan
All I can say is this is bad luck but the fact of the matter isthat touching your phone regardless of whether it is switched on or you are using it is an offence whilst driving....
The law doesn't differentiate between using it or not


I'm not convinced that this has been properly tested in court and neither "driving" nor "using" have actually been defined in context

We see a lot of threads where an OP has received the COFP but the only actual hearing I'm aware of was the notorious Jimmy Carr case
(Not Guilty because I was recording a joke)

The minister responsible for laying the Statutory Instrument to introduce the legislation unfortunately failed to explain what mischief it was intended to prevent.
As a result we see the penalties issued for touching or moving phones, or making the call while the key was in the ignition

With the risk of £600+ costs, drivers cave in and pay

The briefing notes for MPs made clear that the concern was drivers distracted by the call in a car that was moving or would be required to move at any moment - such as in a traffic queue.

When there are proposals to increase the offence to six points, perhaps after eleven years a court might have the opportunity to make clear what actually constitutes an offence
thisisntme
QUOTE (Richy320 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 09:51) *
Unfortunately OP you have little chance of stopping this.

You have to remember that in the great pyramid of evil-doers you sit right at the pinnacle. You are a motorist.

The powers that be, however, give you the opportunity to assuage your guilt by handing over all your money although it's not exactly optional. You are a cash cow, simple as that.

I know all about article 48 of the European Charter of Human Rights

Article 48
Presumption of innocence and right of defence
1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
2. Respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed.

Ridden roughshod over by the government of this once great nation.

Plod says you did it ergo you are guilty.

Magistrates (they need to get out more) believe plod because we all know plod never lie.

Why should we lie comes the cry from the plod masses, we have no need to? Simple answer is you shouldn't, but it has never stopped you in the past!

Don't waste your time trying to prove a negative - how can you prove something that didn't happen? Bend over, take it like a man and add to that ever growing pile of resentment.


Sorry but a lot of that is FOTL rubbish.

Ask yourself this. Who has most to gain from what they say? A policeman who is paid a salary or an accused person who stands to lose money? There's also the fact that people have used and looked for loopholes which while legal until they are closed does create a certain amount of cynicism.
Richy320
QUOTE (thisisntme @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 10:10) *
Sorry but a lot of that is FOTL rubbish.


Which bit?

This government came to power promising to end the "war on motorists" thereby acknowledging that there is a war on motorists. They failed to keep their promise!

Article 48 is true.

If a plod accuses you of something there are thousands of posts on here telling you that their word is sacrosanct in the magistrates court.

There is an ever growing list of accusations where you are required to prove your innocence rather than the crown prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Plod never lie? You're either plod or naïve.



Jlc
These are defendable and there are some 'success' stories on this forum. But the stakes are relatively high and ensure you understand the legislation and how it is interpreted at court. One's opinion is often wrong in law (or how it is implemented in practice).
AFCNEAL
QUOTE (Richy320 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 10:36) *
QUOTE (thisisntme @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 10:10) *
Sorry but a lot of that is FOTL rubbish.


Which bit?



Most of it really.

1. Everyone DOES have the opportunity/option to plead NG and take it to court and beyond. Sure, we have the OPTION to pay an arbitrary fine and avoid court....it's known as personal choice and accepting responsibility for ones decisions.

2. Whilst the Police like any 'body' will have dishonest people in its midst, there are a lot of more 'lucrative' situations to lie about that a simple mobile phone issue! Some will be mistaken (like you and I) periodically, but the volume of paper for a simple phone offence would require a particularly odd individual to chose that...........
thisisntme
QUOTE (Richy320 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 10:36) *
QUOTE (thisisntme @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 10:10) *
Sorry but a lot of that is FOTL rubbish.


Which bit?

This government came to power promising to end the "war on motorists" thereby acknowledging that there is a war on motorists. They failed to keep their promise!

Article 48 is true.

If a plod accuses you of something there are thousands of posts on here telling you that their word is sacrosanct in the magistrates court.

There is an ever growing list of accusations where you are required to prove your innocence rather than the crown prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Plod never lie? You're either plod or naïve.


You need to look again. You will find lots of statements saying that policemen's opinions/statements are likely to carry more weight. That's different from being sacrosanct. The reason? A policeman has been trained to use his judgement and it is his professional opinion whereas the defendants opinion is likely to be an amateur one. Just like an architects opinion would be held up higher than an odd job man's.

Finally I didn't say that the police never lie. Neither am I a policeman. Are you suggesting that defendants never lie? They have less to lose from lying than a policeman would have. It would go further than simply Perverting the course of justice for a policeman it would be misconduct in a public office as well as PCJ so longer in jail and I suspect life would be harder for the policeman than the layman.
southpaw82
Off topic gentlemen m
skidder
QUOTE (Spenny @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 09:54) *
Reading a recent post at MSE on the same subject the OP still has not grasped that simply handling a mobile phone while in control of the car (not even moving) can be deemed to constitute using a mobile phone.

The OP has said plenty of things that confirm that he was handling the mobile phone, and the magistrates will be listening for the OP to refute what the officer says he saw - for the officer to come across and bang on the window suggests that the officer had seen something which he genuinely believed was a person using the phone. Unfortunately for the OP, just about everything they have said about what they were doing tends to confirm that the policeman did see him using the phone, and the half denials (one hand on the wheel, connected via bluetooth, "off" but clearly active suggesting he means on the lock screen, glancing at phone) will suggest to the magistrates that the policeman did see him using his phone.


Lol I knew you had to be from MSE!

Are you saying that moving the phone may constitute using a mobile phone?

The government website states and I quote 'You can get an automatic fixed penalty notice if you’re caught USING a hand-held phone while driving or riding.'

This site needs more advice and not convicting the OP with comments like 'I think you are guilty of using the mobile phone'.

Waiting to be shot down in flames... laugh.gif
facade
QUOTE (thisisntme @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 12:05) *
Finally I didn't say that the police never lie. Neither am I a policeman. Are you suggesting that defendants never lie? They have less to lose from lying than a policeman would have. It would go further than simply Perverting the course of justice for a policeman it would be misconduct in a public office as well as PCJ so longer in jail and I suspect life would be harder for the policeman than the layman.


Let's be realistic.

If the PC believes that the OP was handling the 'phone in such a way as to be "using" it, then he wouldn't be lying if he said that in court. Lying would be claiming that the OP held the 'phone to his ear when he didn't.

Trouble is, now the wheels are in motion, the PC can hardly stand up and say "Well I might have been mistaken", so he has to continue to state that he believed the OP was making use of a function on the phone by the way he was observed handling it.

If the OP can show that the PC could have been mistaken, then the Magistrates should find in his favour, without detriment to the PC. (But it is rather an expensive gamble)
southpaw82
QUOTE (skidder @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 13:39) *
Are you saying that moving the phone may constitute using a mobile phone?


That would depend on the court. However, it should not do. Your problem is that the evidence may well point to you doing more than move it (whatever that may be).

QUOTE
This site needs more advice and not convicting the OP with comments like 'I think you are guilty of using the mobile phone'.

Waiting to be shot down in flames... laugh.gif

As they say, if you don't like it, you're free to leave.
Jlc
The fixed penalty system is for those that readily admit their guilt and want to dispose of the matter without a prosecution. (Or even those who just want to dispose of the matter)

If one doesn't accept guilt then the prosecution has to show beyond reasonable doubt an offence occurred. Of course, the prosecution may not even get off the ground for many reasons but is not a sound strategy.

One can elect for court and await the officer's statement. A plea can be submitted accordingly but the fixed cost penalty has long gone and the fine will increase. Costs as already noted could be high. Still only 3 points though.
Spenny
QUOTE (skidder @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 13:39) *
QUOTE (Spenny @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 09:54) *
Reading a recent post at MSE on the same subject the OP still has not grasped that simply handling a mobile phone while in control of the car (not even moving) can be deemed to constitute using a mobile phone.

The OP has said plenty of things that confirm that he was handling the mobile phone, and the magistrates will be listening for the OP to refute what the officer says he saw - for the officer to come across and bang on the window suggests that the officer had seen something which he genuinely believed was a person using the phone. Unfortunately for the OP, just about everything they have said about what they were doing tends to confirm that the policeman did see him using the phone, and the half denials (one hand on the wheel, connected via bluetooth, "off" but clearly active suggesting he means on the lock screen, glancing at phone) will suggest to the magistrates that the policeman did see him using his phone.


Lol I knew you had to be from MSE!

Are you saying that moving the phone may constitute using a mobile phone?

The government website states and I quote 'You can get an automatic fixed penalty notice if you’re caught USING a hand-held phone while driving or riding.'

This site needs more advice and not convicting the OP with comments like 'I think you are guilty of using the mobile phone'.

Waiting to be shot down in flames... laugh.gif

For the umpteenth time, simply holding a mobile phone MAY be considered using the phone and it really depends on the magistrates and the participants on the day.

Read what I said, not what you think I am saying. For example, of the OP can be convincing on simply moving the phone then the magistrates may be convinced of reasonable doubt, but my point was that the way the information was presented here describes someone possibly using a mobile phone regardless of whether they actually were or not.

I suggest a solicitor might work this, but the OP hasn't yet shown that they have grasped the essential message on what is safe to say in support of his case and what works against them.
Pete D
When the OP started the thread the title said "Didn't even switch it on". So was the phone actually turned off and did you point this out to the officer ? Pete D
nosferatu1001
They probably meant "not unlocked" - some people confuse / conflate the two concepts.
fedup2
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 15:36) *
They probably meant "not unlocked" - some people confuse / conflate the two concepts.





Really?

StuartBu
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 15:36) *
They probably meant "not unlocked" - some people confuse / conflate the two concepts.


"Locked" or "unlocked" is normally taken to mean something different in relation to mobile 'phones
The Rookie
QUOTE (fedup2 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 15:43) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 15:36) *
They probably meant "not unlocked" - some people confuse / conflate the two concepts.





Really?

Yes really.....
cbr786
No matter how people on here put up a response most seem to be from people who are Police or in the Industry as to say.
I for one am a civilian and speak without being biased!! I had an issue with a FPN and went not guilty had the trial date booked got the advanced disclosure which was the police officers highly decorated CV and then getting to the crux of the argument that his opinion is correct because of his training CV etc etc etc .

I bottled it last minute and went guilty on trail date. RESULT == fined original FPN and nominal £20 court costs (Reasons why my means test form showed I was on low disposable income) Oh yes the prosecution did ask for costs and the police officer was off active duty and showed up in court to give evidence. In my case might not be the same for you however. The bench decided to ignore dismiss the prosecutions costs and just let me off with FPN and court costs which where nominal under £50.


I speak from my dealings I cannot comment on other posters saying costs of £650 plus are inevitable the court has a duty to see your financial circumstances and fine you accordingly.

I try not too seek advice on this forum as most of it in my opinion and remember FOLKS JUST MY LOWLY OPINION is that most of the people on here are prosecution minded.

I would take a day or two out and actually sit in the public gallery of a court in session at your local magistrates court. See for your self first hand what kind of costs joe public are paying. Nothing like first hand evidence rather then hearing alot of people tell you on here that the courts will take you to the cleaners lol it simply does not work that way.
George Carter
QUOTE (cbr786 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 18:17) *
No matter how people on here put up a response most seem to be from people who are Police or in the Industry as to say.
I for one am a civilian and speak without being biased!! I had an issue with a FPN and went not guilty had the trial date booked got the advanced disclosure which was the police officers highly decorated CV and then getting to the crux of the argument that his opinion is correct because of his training CV etc etc etc .

I bottled it last minute and went guilty on trail date. RESULT == fined original FPN and nominal £20 court costs (Reasons why my means test form showed I was on low disposable income) Oh yes the prosecution did ask for costs and the police officer was off active duty and showed up in court to give evidence. In my case might not be the same for you however. The bench decided to ignore dismiss the prosecutions costs and just let me off with FPN and court costs which where nominal under £50.


I speak from my dealings I cannot comment on other posters saying costs of £650 plus are inevitable the court has a duty to see your financial circumstances and fine you accordingly.


I try not too seek advice on this forum as most of it in my opinion and remember FOLKS JUST MY LOWLY OPINION is that most of the people on here are prosecution minded.

I would take a day or two out and actually sit in the public gallery of a court in session at your local magistrates court. See for your self first hand what kind of costs joe public are paying. Nothing like first hand evidence rather then hearing alot of people tell you on here that the courts will take you to the cleaners lol it simply does not work that way.



I agree, the average in these part seem to be £150.
bama
QUOTE
When I stepped out of the car the officer asked me "were you making an emergency call on your mobile"

After the event I know but that was the set-up question - akin to when did you stop beating your wife or the more usual 'do you know why I stopped you'..
It opened the logic (trap) door to you having 'used' it in a myriad other ways.The running out and banging on the window will very probably have unsettled you to the extent that it would be difficult to keep a cool head when responding. Not that its a standard technique used to achieve that...
southpaw82
Fines are not related to disposable income but rather gross income less tax and NI. Costs are subject to different rules, one of which is that they should not exceed the sum which, having regard to the offender’s means and any other financial order imposed, he or she is able to pay and which it is reasonable to order him or her to pay. The prosecutor will generally ask for costs of £85 for an uncontested case and £620 for a contested case. These are starting points and it is open to (1) the prosecutor to show their costs were higher; (2) the defendant to show (a) the costs were lower and/or (b) they can't reasonably afford the costs asked for; and (3) the court to impose a fair and just costs order.

Without knowing the law and principles behind costs in criminal cases and the defendant's means it's impossible to say what costs he will pay. However, it is extremely unwise not to warn him of what costs he might be exposed to. It's also unwise to take personal experience in one single case (or even a few cases) and extrapolate that into a general rule.
smellywelly
QUOTE (cbr786 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 18:17) *
I try not too seek advice on this forum as most of it in my opinion and remember FOLKS JUST MY LOWLY OPINION is that most of the people on here are prosecution minded.


I agree to some extent, but, (and I say this having conducted my own case in court although not driving related) I think the inference of court procedure is not to be underestimated, in that , those who post here, can shed some light on turns of events which seem to defy logic, and it is only by reading the many responses that helps posters understand what it is they need to do, and why. On balance , that, IMO does give a poster a better shot.

I'm on record here as being quite browned off by the cops mentality about phone use though. My view would be that if the OP is genuine and can contest in court that he was not using the device, then he should do so... if it was me I'd take the punt, because some of us have to stand up for this nonsense, as it just becomes an ever tighter noose, on an already oppressed part of daily life .. and no .. thats no FMOTL bollox either !!
George Carter
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 19:28) *
Fines are not related to disposable income but rather gross income less tax and NI. Costs are subject to different rules, one of which is that they should not exceed the sum which, having regard to the offender’s means and any other financial order imposed, he or she is able to pay and which it is reasonable to order him or her to pay. The prosecutor will generally ask for costs of £85 for an uncontested case and £620 for a contested case. These are starting points and it is open to (1) the prosecutor to show their costs were higher; (2) the defendant to show (a) the costs were lower and/or (b) they can't reasonably afford the costs asked for; and (3) the court to impose a fair and just costs order.

Without knowing the law and principles behind costs in criminal cases and the defendant's means it's impossible to say what costs he will pay. However, it is extremely unwise not to warn him of what costs he might be exposed to. It's also unwise to take personal experience in one single case (or even a few cases) and extrapolate that into a general rule.



When were you last in an English Magistrates Court?
southpaw82
QUOTE (George Carter @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 19:36) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 19:28) *
Fines are not related to disposable income but rather gross income less tax and NI. Costs are subject to different rules, one of which is that they should not exceed the sum which, having regard to the offender’s means and any other financial order imposed, he or she is able to pay and which it is reasonable to order him or her to pay. The prosecutor will generally ask for costs of £85 for an uncontested case and £620 for a contested case. These are starting points and it is open to (1) the prosecutor to show their costs were higher; (2) the defendant to show (a) the costs were lower and/or (b) they can't reasonably afford the costs asked for; and (3) the court to impose a fair and just costs order.

Without knowing the law and principles behind costs in criminal cases and the defendant's means it's impossible to say what costs he will pay. However, it is extremely unwise not to warn him of what costs he might be exposed to. It's also unwise to take personal experience in one single case (or even a few cases) and extrapolate that into a general rule.



When were you last in an English Magistrates Court?

Fair enough - CPS guidance suggests £620 as a starting point for costs in a contested case. It detracts little from the point that a defendant needs to be adequately warned about costs.
George Carter
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 19:40) *
QUOTE (George Carter @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 19:36) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 19:28) *
Fines are not related to disposable income but rather gross income less tax and NI. Costs are subject to different rules, one of which is that they should not exceed the sum which, having regard to the offender’s means and any other financial order imposed, he or she is able to pay and which it is reasonable to order him or her to pay. The prosecutor will generally ask for costs of £85 for an uncontested case and £620 for a contested case. These are starting points and it is open to (1) the prosecutor to show their costs were higher; (2) the defendant to show (a) the costs were lower and/or (b) they can't reasonably afford the costs asked for; and (3) the court to impose a fair and just costs order.

Without knowing the law and principles behind costs in criminal cases and the defendant's means it's impossible to say what costs he will pay. However, it is extremely unwise not to warn him of what costs he might be exposed to. It's also unwise to take personal experience in one single case (or even a few cases) and extrapolate that into a general rule.



When were you last in an English Magistrates Court?

Fair enough - CPS guidance suggests £620 as a starting point for costs in a contested case. It detracts little from the point that a defendant needs to be adequately warned about costs.



You'd think in the current circumstances they'd abide by the guidelines but rarely to, costs haven't really increased in 20 odd years.
southpaw82
I've no doubt there are local agreements.
cbr786
Listen I speak from my previous dealings and experience (please ignore typos and spelling mistakes as i am rushing as I type this because I am getting ready for bed have to be up early work 5 am start lol I know on a freakin Sunday!!)

back to topic at hand the court room environment has to be watched from the public gallery on numerous occasions so one can be informed of the procedure. Simple things like how to address the Bench etc. I have been to court and struck a deal with the CPS between his cases to have my case thrown out dismissed etc. My advice is when you go into a court room do not act like you are a master QC defending and behave like a big headed egotistic person because you will soon find out you are being prosecuted by the CPS and also the BENCH the court clark and even the court usher has taken a dislike to you!

The job is to act polite be well dressed make an effort and be calm and clear well spoken. Also if you can present your case methodically and carefully you will possibly stand a slim chance of getting off with the matter.
The law is clear on the topic if the engine on the car is running if you are parked at the side of the road or in traffic so long as the engine is running you cannot do any of these HANDLE A PHONE EVEN IF TO MOVE IT FROM A TO B, DRINK WATER FROM A BOTTLE, EAT A BANANA APPLE OR ANY FOOD SWEET CHEWING GUM ETC AT THE CONTROLS OF THE STEERING WHEEL IT IS AND CAN BE PROSECUTABLE. I am not sure where the stance on smoking at the controls of the car is ? I do not know if you are allowed to change a music CD manually retract and insert another while at the controls of a running vehicle. I feel the law is to oppressive and needs to be readdressed. Their was a time the local plod was loved in this country and much respected where they would use discretion and address the customer as SIR also give them a stern talking to and let them be on there way etc but sadly those days are long gone now it seems it is just a big revenue generating exercise.

getting back to the court room never accuse the officer of telling lies this will not go down well with everyone in the courtroom. Instead use words like "your mistaken" or "you failed to pay attention" or "you failed in your duty that day to do ...."

if you can demonstrate that the officer did not do his job correctly or similar you create a doubt all that is needed is to create a doubt!
I know the Bench will think why would an officer lie he is paid regardless and you on the other hand have a motive to escape being found guilty but still you got to give it a try otherwise you will always think maybe you should have gone to court and defended. At the end of the day the points will remain the same and money is just money you cannot take it with you when you leave this world.

I personally am anti police and feel as soon as they start wearing cameras the better. Then we can see how long a lunch break they have and what they do through out the day. I also feel the camera should have GPS technology so their whereabouts are logged as well so when they answer a police radio the operator knows where they are and how far they are from an incident etc. I feel the Police should be governed more stringently and face random monthly drugs testing as well as credit checks to be performed. They should also have their bank accounts monitored for large transactions etc. This will weed out the corrupt element and leave honest officers instead. RANT OVER
peterguk
QUOTE (cbr786 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 22:52) *
The law is clear on the topic if the engine on the car is running if you are parked at the side of the road or in traffic so long as the engine is running you cannot do any of these HANDLE A PHONE EVEN IF TO MOVE IT FROM A TO B, DRINK WATER FROM A BOTTLE, EAT A BANANA APPLE OR ANY FOOD SWEET CHEWING GUM ETC


cbr786
its not funny google people have been done for all sorts and got a FPN plus points for far lesser things then mobile phones. Here is the kicker you are allowed to use a electronic device to talk to some one while driving and not be convicted and that is a hand held radio meaning walkie talkie etc I might stand corrected on this but according to government website it said radios and walkie talkies are not prosecutable ???? How bizarre I personally see no difference to using a walkie talkie to a phone.

I MIGHT BE CORRECTED ON THIS POINT BUT THIS IS WHAT I READ!
peterguk
Walkie talkies are exempt from mobile phone legislation.
Mattd
CBR it might be useful to restrict yourself to posting advice you have knowledge or experience of...in contrast to US crime dramas you can't cross examine an ordinary witness in an English magistrates court then tell then how they have to answer such as yes or no. You ask them a question and they can answer any way they like. In fact most defence divisors are trained to use open not closed questions so as to allow the witness to elaborate and potentially contradict themselves.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 22:56) *
QUOTE (cbr786 @ Sat, 21 Feb 2015 - 22:52) *
The law is clear on the topic if the engine on the car is running if you are parked at the side of the road or in traffic so long as the engine is running you cannot do any of these HANDLE A PHONE EVEN IF TO MOVE IT FROM A TO B, DRINK WATER FROM A BOTTLE, EAT A BANANA APPLE OR ANY FOOD SWEET CHEWING GUM ETC






witch law Ieat sweets all the time on a long journey as i am diabetic
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.