What is proof of using a phone while driving?
Discussion
pattieG said:
What is the test in court to prove the offence of using a phone whilst driving?
Do they need one, you've already admitted in your first pot in this thread that you were using your phone to take a photograph? pattieG said:
Is a photo of me taking a photo in my car stationary proof of driving while using a mobile phone.
pattieG said:
A month on from the interview and the results so far are.
NFA on the alleged assault.
No word yet on the phone side. I'm hoping a single still image of me holding a black rectangle isn't regarded as evidence of the offence but we shall see. The original question asked wasn't answered so I'll ask it again.
What is the test in court to prove the offence of using a phone whilst driving?
The onus of proof falls to the prosecution. I’d say that your defence that you were not driving sounds strong.NFA on the alleged assault.
No word yet on the phone side. I'm hoping a single still image of me holding a black rectangle isn't regarded as evidence of the offence but we shall see. The original question asked wasn't answered so I'll ask it again.
What is the test in court to prove the offence of using a phone whilst driving?
IANAL, but if the phone-use prosecution progresses, can the OP point out that the image (& more importantly the only testimony about what OP was doing when the image was taken) is provided by someone who has already made a false allegation against him? And therefore there is a malicious aspect about it and the testimony is a pile of BS?
...if he can cast enough doubt on the testimony about the circumstances of the image, all the CPS have got is a photo of him sitting in a car holding his phone. Which isn't of-itself illegal.
...if he can cast enough doubt on the testimony about the circumstances of the image, all the CPS have got is a photo of him sitting in a car holding his phone. Which isn't of-itself illegal.
havoc said:
IANAL, but if the phone-use prosecution progresses, can the OP point out that the image (& more importantly the only testimony about what OP was doing when the image was taken) is provided by someone who has already made a false allegation against him? And therefore there is a malicious aspect about it and the testimony is a pile of BS?
...if he can cast enough doubt on the testimony about the circumstances of the image, all the CPS have got is a photo of him sitting in a car holding his phone. Which isn't of-itself illegal.
NFA does not mean false allegation. It means NFA....if he can cast enough doubt on the testimony about the circumstances of the image, all the CPS have got is a photo of him sitting in a car holding his phone. Which isn't of-itself illegal.
Mobile phone cases are police led prosecutions. Of course, CPS may eventually take over conduct of proceedings.
OP’s best hope is that proceedings are not brought, or discontinued before trial. Not driving because of irate cyclist isn’t the best defence I’ve ever heard.
pattieG said:
So there isn't a test for the offence such as
Proof of:
1. Car in motion
2. Engine running
3. Use of phone
Seems odd to me.
That's already been discussed.Proof of:
1. Car in motion
2. Engine running
3. Use of phone
Seems odd to me.
What constitutes use is outlined.
What constitutes driving is not defined in the regs, but is elsewhere.
Elsewhere says it doesn't have to be in motion to be driving.
The court will look at the legislation, definitions, the evidence & perhaps consider prior rulings.
Then it's up to them to decide whether they are satisfied given all that for your particular circumstances.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff