Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

[dan_1207]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

But as many people have more than one phone, how does OP prove he i) only has one phone &/or ii) wasn't using someone elses' phone.

Agree with Steve that magistrates tend to go along with copper's version, unless accused can show it was impossible for the police to see what they claim to have seen.

He doesn't have to prove anything.

[nemesis45]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

He doesn't have to prove anything.

Wrong!

[des8]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

If two cops stand up in court and swear the op was seen using a phone, it is no use him replying "no I wasn't guv. Here's me phone records."
All that shows is that that particular phone wasn't in use.
The cops'evidence stands.
The op has to show the cops could not have seen what they claim because eg the view from the bridge was impossible, otherwise their joint testimony will be considered as proof.
Photo's of the vehicle from the right sort of angle to show the officer could not have seen inside the vehicle would be useful.
It comes down to OP's word v cops' word

[wales01man]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

Think it will be Cops 1 OP nil in court .

[dan_1207]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

Wrong!

It's also known as burden of proof. It is the job of the OP to show that the evidence against him is wrong, not to prove that he is innocent (they're not the same thing!)

[dan_1207]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

Read this.

http://www.trafficdefencelawyer.com/...st-driving.htm

Specifically, this:

The prosecution's case will involve a police officer who says he say you driving with what appeared to be a mobile phone up to your ear. Often the magistrates will agree with that evidence – but not always.
All you need to do is cast a doubt in their minds. The police officers view may have been obscured or may have been fleeting. You may have been scratching your ear. If the magistrates are unsure of your guilt then they must acquit you.

- - - Updated - - -

If two cops stand up in court and swear the op was seen using a phone, it is no use him replying "no I wasn't guv. Here's me phone records."
All that shows is that that particular phone wasn't in use.
The cops'evidence stands.
The op has to show the cops could not have seen what they claim because eg the view from the bridge was impossible, otherwise their joint testimony will be considered as proof.
Photo's of the vehicle from the right sort of angle to show the officer could not have seen inside the vehicle would be useful.
It comes down to OP's word v cops' word

The question is ultimately can a JP be satisfied BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that an offence was committed, just because a police officer says so. If it's the officer's word vs. the OP, then nothing has been proven and the JP must acquit.

[dan_1207]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

Also, read this:

http://www.motordefencelawyers.co.uk...-mobile-phone/

Specifically, this:

What are the defences to a charge of using a mobile phone whilst driving?

Prosecutions of motorists for using a mobile phone often rely upon the evidence of one police officer or even PCSO, giving evidence that they saw you “using your mobile phone”. These types of cases are difficult to defend, as they rely on your word against the officers, however we can strengthen your case by way of gathering evidence which supports what you say.

Strengthening your case will include steps such as obtaining statements from other witnesses who may support your case, obtaining your phone records to show that there were no incoming or outgoing calls, texts or flows of data, obtaining photographs of your car to show any issues relating to the officers ability to see inside and cross examining the officer on his evidence in the hope that it shows inconsistencies.

The objective of these efforts will be to place a doubt in the courts mind as to whether the offence has been committed and if there is a reasonable doubt, the law requires that you are acquitted.

[wales01man]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

Problem is will the Magistrate believe it?

reading local court reports it appears they dish out bigger fines and costs for those who defend

[dan_1207]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

That's a question no-one can really answer I s'pose. I'm just trying to explain to the OP that they shouldn't accept defeat, which seems to be the theme here.

It is true that if you defend and lose, the consequences are far worse, but that's a decision for the OP to take.

[nemesis45]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

Think it will be Cops 1 OP nil in court .

Me too, little or no chance of winning.

nem

[des8]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

I think it's a case of being pragmatic.

[stevemLS]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

He doesn't have to prove anything.

Whilst we know this to be the case and we know where the burden of proof rests, the OP faces the evidence of not one but two coppers.

If he bowls up at court with nothing but a bare denial and nothing to discredit the evidence of the officers, what do you think the result will be.

[dan_1207]

Re: Charged with Mobile phone offence and pretty sure I'm innocent

Whilst we know this to be the case and we know where the burden of proof rests, the OP faces the evidence of not one but two coppers.

If he bowls up at court with nothing but a bare denial and nothing to discredit the evidence of the officers, what do you think the result will be.

I'm not suggesting he does that.