Hand held device - no evidence provided

[RachLK7]

On June 9th 2023 I received a letter from Northumbria Police stating I was using a handheld device while driving on May 2nd 2023. I did intend to reply requesting evidence but due to mental health issues and adhd I genuinely forgot.

I have then received a Single Justice Procedure Notice on 17/10/2023 stating I have 21 days to respond, I've completely forgot about it until today as agajn my mental health is so bad lately and I've been dealing with criminal damage to my car which has caused me to suffer greatly due to stress.

I want to plead not guilty because I have not seen any evidence, I genuinely cannot remember whether I was or wasn't "using" my phone on that day. I do remember these was a crash on the road in question and I thought it was very strange that the police car was literally parked on the mini roundabout. I had travelled from Newcastle back home that day after visiting my dentist to have teeth removed, which was quite a lengthy procedure so I was emotional afterwards.

I do have a bmw 1 series which has an idrive and hands free calling, the phone may have been in my hand if its fell out of the cradle!

Surely if I'm being accused of something I have the right to see evidence so I can make an informed decision as to whether I am guilty or not guilty?

Obviously this is time sensitive now and I'm panicking (more stress) I'm juat not coping well at the moment and excess stress makes everythjng worse!

They have stated that a cyclist has video evidence of me "using" my mobile phone for 13 seconds but HOW can that person possibly tell what I was actually doing on my phone if anything!

I'm now facing the following charges:-

1: RT88567 - fail to give info re. drivers identity SEC 172(3) RTA 88

2. RV86019 - use a handheld mobile phone whilst driving m/v on road

Im really not coping well at moment with my mental health, the thought of attending court makes me ill I can't afford a solicitor, I can't afford a fine and 6 points on my license would majorly increase my insurance next year when I renew!

ANY advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance
Rachael x

[islandgirl]

Thank you for coming back to let us know. It seems like the best result you could have hoped for as Manxman says.

[echat11]

Maybe the cyclist was nearly knocked of his bike by someone on a phone whilst driving? Drivers do not need to be holding their phones on the move or in traffic its against the law and dangerous Read how many innocents are killed or maimed by drivers using phones?

I'm not making excuses for drivers using phones. I'm saying the 'bicyclist' shouldn't be making the maneuver he / she made in traffic. Let me put it in context, I saw a motorcyclist do a 'wheelie' in moving traffic, there wasn't any distance between him and cars, sole reason, to show off to a fellow motorcyclist.

I half went to report it online, I had no proof, only it the Council cameras had picked it up. So decided not to proceed.

So that is the 'context' of my comment.

[wales01man]

Should the bicyclist have been doing this in traffic?

'he stops then backs up on his bike to get a good look in my window'

Me thinks not.

Maybe the cyclist was nearly knocked of his bike by someone on a phone whilst driving? Drivers do not need to be holding their phones on the move or in traffic its against the law and dangerous Read how many innocents are killed or maimed by drivers using phones?

[echat11]

Should the bicyclist have been doing this in traffic?

'he stops then backs up on his bike to get a good look in my window'

Me thinks not.

[Manxman]

Thanks for the update. I think you got the best result you could in the circumstances.

I'd suggest the lesson is: never touch your phone in the car unless the engine is switched off...

[RachLK7]

Hi all, so I was in court today for the 2 charges. I still had not seen any evidence which I made them aware I wanted to view before I could make an informed decision. To be honest they were great and very fair, agreed I needed to view footage as prosecution had a legal obligation to provide this!
As it was last May I genuinely couldn’t remember the day but it does clearly show a cyclist approach my car while I’m in stationary traffic so not moving at all as it was bumper to bumper, he stops then backs up on his bike to get a good look in my window and yes I’m holding my phone and texting! Silly move on my part I’m aware of that now but I held my hands up in court and said there was no way I would even try and deny the footage. I did try to request a lesser charge which would give me only 3 points but they declined that suggestion and said I would rcv 6 own tally points and a fine!

in regards to 172 failure to provide details they were extremely fair and lenient as I used mitigating circumstances to argue I simply did not rcv the first 2 letters requesting drivers details but I can confirm it would have been me driving which I have no problem admitted to but it would be unfair to impose the usual sentence/points and/or ban for this charge as I could not respond to something I simply haven’t received! I have ongoing issues with my mail being delivered and they agreed it can happen.
luckily they decided to drop this charge completely as I’m not a repeat offender and have no points on my license and never have had!

so instead of 12 points, a ban & a fine - I rcvd 6 points & a fine, not ideal but like I said I was holding my mobile phone so lesson learned I guess!

thanks for everyone’s help in regards to this! x

[HandyAndy]

Why cannot the phone charge succeed there is video evidence this i presume shows the OP if this is shown as evidence where do they stand...

Because there is no evidence to show who was driving. That comes from the response to the s172 "Request for Driver's Details", which the police say was not received. As I explained earlier, even in the very unlikely event that the video shows the face of the driver clearly, all the police will have is a picture of A.N.Other - a person whom they have never met and cannot identify to charge.

....it seems they are trying to rely on the defence of no memory of receiving notification.

Which will not cut the mustard. The police have merely to show that the request was sent by post, properly stamped and addressed to the intended recipient. If they do that, the notice is deemed to have been "served" two working days later. If the recipient wants to defend any prosecution arising from alleged non-receipt the burden falls on him to prove that.

[wales01man]

But she cannot recall whether she received a request to provide the driver's details or not. If she didn't, why should she respond to a request she didn't receive? If she did it is too late to do so now.

She must deal with the situation as it stands - she faces two charges in court. One of them (the mobile phone offence) cannot succeed. The other (the s172 offence) seems a slam dunk for a conviction (provided the request was properly served). She cannot name the driver now to avoid that charge and then defend the phone charge (and it's by no means certain whether she has a viable defence to that from what we've heard).

She needs to find out whether a s172 request was made. If it wasn't, she's home and dry. If it was (which I strongly suspect is the case) I cannot see any way she can avoid a conviction as, on her own admission, she did not respond.

Why cannot the phone charge succeed there is video evidence this i presume shows the OP if this is shown as evidence where do they stand it seems they are trying to rely on the defence of no memory of receiving notification

[HandyAndy]

Or, could the OP identify the driver then plead not guilty to the phone offence? (not having received the request to provide information)

But she cannot recall whether she received a request to provide the driver's details or not. If she didn't, why should she respond to a request she didn't receive? If she did it is too late to do so now.

She must deal with the situation as it stands - she faces two charges in court. One of them (the mobile phone offence) cannot succeed. The other (the s172 offence) seems a slam dunk for a conviction (provided the request was properly served). She cannot name the driver now to avoid that charge and then defend the phone charge (and it's by no means certain whether she has a viable defence to that from what we've heard).

She needs to find out whether a s172 request was made. If it wasn't, she's home and dry. If it was (which I strongly suspect is the case) I cannot see any way she can avoid a conviction as, on her own admission, she did not respond.

[islandgirl]

Or, could the OP identify the driver then plead not guilty to the phone offence? (not having received the request to provide information)

[HandyAndy]

... but that's obviously outside of the 14 days.

What 14 days? There is no 14 day deadline for anything connected with your matter.

As I said, you need to concentrate on the "Fail to Provide" (FtP) matter. The police have charged you with that offence and this confirms they have no evidence that you were driving. Therefore the mobile phone charge cannot succeed.

You need a copy of the correspondence that was sent to you which includes the request. You should already have been provided with it. If you haven't you should contact the police and ask them to provide it. If it did include a request for driver's details the burden falls to you to show that it was not served on you, otherwise it is presumed served two working days after posting.

I will plead not guilty and request to view evidence, as with any allegations/charges it would be crazy to admit fault without proper investigation into it!

As I've also said, you have the evidence. You have the statement from the cyclist (which, incidentally, shows your car's registration number) and the statement from PC Philips who viewed the footage taken by the cyclist. The police have investigated the matter and decided to charge you.

But first, you need to clarify whether or not you received a request to provide the driver's details. If you did and did not respond then the mobile phone charge becomes largely irrelevant (unless you want to take advantage of the "deal" I mentioned earlier).

[wales01man]

The cyclists video only needs to show you holding the phone in your hand unlikely they could film the phone anywhere else,You stated that they are after you for FTP is this true have you not admitted that you were the diver

[RachLK7]

HandyAndyi don't recall receiving the original Notice requesting information regarding the driver, they state it was sent to me on 10th May but I have absolutely NO recollection of evidence of the letter. I do have a letter dated for June 2023 but that's obviously outside of the 14 days.
There has been a major issue for a few years now where post, deliveries & takeaways go to an address near to my home (my address ends in Avenue theirs is exactly the same but ends with Gardens) it's really frustrating and has caused issues with bills, debt, hospital appts etc and it has been mentioned on several occasions!

The witness statement says "appears" to be holding a mobile device, I'm not sure how a cyclist would be able to see into a moving vehicle so clearly that they know I'm in a mobile phone unless they were glued to my car window! Ita really frustrating as I do remember the day in question, the traffic was absolutely manic due to a crash & the positioning of the police cars had made it even more of a hazard to drive around the round about/junction in question.... I genuinely cannot understand why I would be using my mobile phone at the time in question, it definitely wouldn't have been for communication purposes!

I will plead not guilty and request to view evidence, as with any allegations/charges it would be crazy to admit fault without proper investigation into it!

Just hope I can stay focused enough with my mental health to follow up on this!

Thanks for taking your time to respond

[HandyAndy]

There is film. If it clearly shows this person then surely that is evidence they were driving? Would it not be better to admit the phone offence? Lower fine...

It's unlikely that a cyclist's film provides an image sufficiently clear to identify anybody. But even if it does, the police have never seen Rachael so have no idea what she looks like (and so cannot compare her to the image). They have to have all the evidence they need to support a prosecution before they begin court action and if they do not have it when a trial begins (which will almost certainly be the first time anybody has seen her) they must offer no evidence.

Similarly to speeding offences, their charge is speculative. With speeding offences it is worthwhile the Registered Keeper (provided he was driving) doing a "deal" with the prosecution to plead guilty to speeding provided the FtP charge is dropped. It usually (depending on the speed) results in a lower fine and fewer points and certainly less of an impact on insurance premiums. I'm not so sure in this case. The fine will be lower but the points will be the same (6). But I'm not sure how insurers view a CU80 endorsement compared to an MS90.

Anyway, we need confirmation from Rachael that she received a request to provide driver's details. It doesn't seem to have been provided with her evidence pack. One thing she most certainly must not do is to plead guilty to both offences.