Legal advice/bullying police?
Discussion
Firstly, whilst well intentioned no doubt, ignore postings about NIP or CPS. These apply south of the border. What you have is a conditional offer of fixed penalty - COFP. If you pay it, then it cannot be questioned, she gets 3 points and pays £60. If you want to dispute it, do nothing and the PF will repeat the offer to you. Again do nothing, and you will get a court summons to have your day in court, presumably in the local JP court in Glasgow.
Once there the test is simple, was the device she had in her hand a mobile phone ? Was she using it for anything ? Not relevant if she was using it for calls, texts, sat nav, or to scratch an itch on her nose. Whatever she was doing with it, she was "using a mobile phone". Offence complete, guilty verdict, fine of £150 plus and 3 points.
If you want to go to a solicitor to plead not guilty and run a trial, expect to add £300 to £500 for you local guy in the high street. If you want a road traffic expert, their description not mine, to go over the paperwork for loopholes expect a bill of £1000.
Once there the test is simple, was the device she had in her hand a mobile phone ? Was she using it for anything ? Not relevant if she was using it for calls, texts, sat nav, or to scratch an itch on her nose. Whatever she was doing with it, she was "using a mobile phone". Offence complete, guilty verdict, fine of £150 plus and 3 points.
If you want to go to a solicitor to plead not guilty and run a trial, expect to add £300 to £500 for you local guy in the high street. If you want a road traffic expert, their description not mine, to go over the paperwork for loopholes expect a bill of £1000.
let me get this right..... you want to complain about a policeman doing his job??
do you often complain about the woman in tescos serving you quickly and efficiently? Or the mechanic for fixing your car?
suck it up and pay the fine. By stopping her he might have saved a life, possibly your girlfriends! think about that whilst being overprotective!
do you often complain about the woman in tescos serving you quickly and efficiently? Or the mechanic for fixing your car?
suck it up and pay the fine. By stopping her he might have saved a life, possibly your girlfriends! think about that whilst being overprotective!
Gareth79 said:
As mentioned it doesn't matter what purpose the phone is being used for - if the person is driving and it is being used the offence is committed. The legislation was deliberately open-ended so that it didn't need to list and prohibit all the purposes a phone could be used for.
There was a report where a comedian got off a ticket by claiming he was using a voice recording feature of the phone, but IMO the CPS was clueless about the actual law!
edit: As just pointed out, this assumes it was being used hand-held. The quote in the post "the officer told her that it is against the law to use any mobile device in any way whilst driving" is a little vague.
You couldn't be more wrong. It very specifically DOES matter for what purpose the phone is being used. "The law" requires that the phone be used for an 'interactive communication purpose', to constitute an offence. There was a report where a comedian got off a ticket by claiming he was using a voice recording feature of the phone, but IMO the CPS was clueless about the actual law!
edit: As just pointed out, this assumes it was being used hand-held. The quote in the post "the officer told her that it is against the law to use any mobile device in any way whilst driving" is a little vague.
Unfortunately for the OP and his girlfriend (although this comes from a south-of-the-border standpoint), the Magistrates are disregarding the above wording and interpreting 'use' as being anything at all, including programming sat nav.
As to the OP, I'm very much afraid that, regardless of your girlfriend's situation, the law applies equally at all times. I know this makes me sound a bit of an arse, and I don't mean to take such an arbitrary line, but that is precisely how these things work. I'm not suggesting that they should necessarily (nor am I suggesting the counter), but the reality is that it doesn't matter if you only drove a few miles an hour over the limit, or that you had only had a little bit too much to drink, or that you're uninsured, but only driving a few hundred yards to a friend's house, or indeed, that you are going to a funeral and only using the phone to get there on time. Them's the rules and it's a case of abide by them and take the consequences of that choice, or break them and take the consequences of that choice. Not a perfect system, but it's the one we have and it's the one that we are all aware exists.
Finally to the idea that the copper told you that the ticket was final and there was no going back, I'm sure, like the majority of police officers, he was a normal bloke, with not a lot of education, woefully inadequate training and essentially, just an ordinary bloke looking to do as little as possible until home time. This, of course, is subject to the usual provision that some police officers are excellent, and it really isn't the officer's fault if he isn't required to have A-Levels, better training, or suffers from 'being human'.
Sorry I can't give a more positive outlook, but look on the bright side, at least your girlfriend has a man who is willing to stick up for her on the internet
Simon.
ferrariF50lover said:
You couldn't be more wrong. It very specifically DOES matter for what purpose the phone is being used. "The law" requires that the phone be used for an 'interactive communication purpose', to constitute an offence.
Unfortunately for the OP and his girlfriend (although this comes from a south-of-the-border standpoint), the Magistrates are disregarding the above wording and interpreting 'use' as being anything at all, including programming sat nav.
As to the OP, I'm very much afraid that, regardless of your girlfriend's situation, the law applies equally at all times. I know this makes me sound a bit of an arse, and I don't mean to take such an arbitrary line, but that is precisely how these things work. I'm not suggesting that they should necessarily (nor am I suggesting the counter), but the reality is that it doesn't matter if you only drove a few miles an hour over the limit, or that you had only had a little bit too much to drink, or that you're uninsured, but only driving a few hundred yards to a friend's house, or indeed, that you are going to a funeral and only using the phone to get there on time. Them's the rules and it's a case of abide by them and take the consequences of that choice, or break them and take the consequences of that choice. Not a perfect system, but it's the one we have and it's the one that we are all aware exists.
Finally to the idea that the copper told you that the ticket was final and there was no going back, I'm sure, like the majority of police officers, he was a normal bloke, with not a lot of education, woefully inadequate training and essentially, just an ordinary bloke looking to do as little as possible until home time. This, of course, is subject to the usual provision that some police officers are excellent, and it really isn't the officer's fault if he isn't required to have A-Levels, better training, or suffers from 'being human'.
Sorry I can't give a more positive outlook, but look on the bright side, at least your girlfriend has a man who is willing to stick up for her on the internet
Simon.
I take offence to the 'not a lot of education'. Whilst I appreciate the counties generally have lower standards then the MET where I worked they still have to be VERY intellegent to work there. A lawyer spends nearly a decade - most of it on one subject to become qualified. A police officer has six months to cover ALL subjects to the same standard as a Laywer. He also has to learn to make these decisions which a lawyer will spend up to five years picking apart in a matter of seconds. Unfortunately for the OP and his girlfriend (although this comes from a south-of-the-border standpoint), the Magistrates are disregarding the above wording and interpreting 'use' as being anything at all, including programming sat nav.
As to the OP, I'm very much afraid that, regardless of your girlfriend's situation, the law applies equally at all times. I know this makes me sound a bit of an arse, and I don't mean to take such an arbitrary line, but that is precisely how these things work. I'm not suggesting that they should necessarily (nor am I suggesting the counter), but the reality is that it doesn't matter if you only drove a few miles an hour over the limit, or that you had only had a little bit too much to drink, or that you're uninsured, but only driving a few hundred yards to a friend's house, or indeed, that you are going to a funeral and only using the phone to get there on time. Them's the rules and it's a case of abide by them and take the consequences of that choice, or break them and take the consequences of that choice. Not a perfect system, but it's the one we have and it's the one that we are all aware exists.
Finally to the idea that the copper told you that the ticket was final and there was no going back, I'm sure, like the majority of police officers, he was a normal bloke, with not a lot of education, woefully inadequate training and essentially, just an ordinary bloke looking to do as little as possible until home time. This, of course, is subject to the usual provision that some police officers are excellent, and it really isn't the officer's fault if he isn't required to have A-Levels, better training, or suffers from 'being human'.
Sorry I can't give a more positive outlook, but look on the bright side, at least your girlfriend has a man who is willing to stick up for her on the internet
Simon.
I trained with a guy who having qualified as a surgeon decided he would follow his childhood dream after recovering from cancer. He stated in no uncertain terms that the training in the police was considerably more difficult than his medical training.
I myself have a law degree 1st with an 85% average, 3 A levels and 11 GCSES (9 A-C and two I considered irrelevant) on top of that I was identified for accelerated promotion and scored off the chart. upon arrival in Australia I had to do numerous tests one of which was a physc test. I was identified within the top five percent intelligence within Australia. I now hold a senior government position despite being only 32.
I do not consider myself anywhere near as intelligent or motivated as some of my collegues. I have worked with people that you cant help but admire. (also the opposite on occasions) About 70% of police applicants do not qualify as police officers. Its not a job you can just walk into. Ask anyone who has applied. So to state they are uneducated makes you yourself an uneducated.
Knowing how police systems work I suspect the guy on the front desk is either new and still in training or injured/ subject to discipline and therefore annoyed at being office confined.
mat777 said:
to all those saying the legislation is a blanket ban on using phones whilst driving even when mounted and doing satnav... if this is the case then why can one purchase a TomTom satnav app for smartphones? Hmm?
Because unless they're seriously stupid, they'd know to do the screen tappy touchy stuff before setting off on their assisted journey, rather than driving along mindlessly interacting with it. MrBrightSi said:
CraigyMc has hit the nail on the head.
Sorry to say it OP, but the unfortunate event she was attending doesn't detract from her using her mobile while driving.
Edit- Saw sorry at the bottom of the post and thought it was streaky, going blind.
I'm not sure whether to feel honoured, or not.Sorry to say it OP, but the unfortunate event she was attending doesn't detract from her using her mobile while driving.
Edit- Saw sorry at the bottom of the post and thought it was streaky, going blind.
Edited by MrBrightSi on Wednesday 13th June 23:31
Streaky
the reason people are assuming it was hand held is because if it was mounted (i.e - like a zillion tomtom units are) it would be very odd given what has been said by the OP) We have all assumed his lass was driving from the front and not sat in the back using a broomstick to work the peddles and just has real long arms.....because it's a fair assumption to make.
If it was mounted and not being fiddled with and the OP didnt bother to mention it then he has left out a VERY big point! Because the cop would be a loon.
If it was mounted and not being fiddled with and the OP didnt bother to mention it then he has left out a VERY big point! Because the cop would be a loon.
ferrariF50lover said:
. . . like the majority of police officers . . . with not a lot of education . . .
The inspector in charge of the Brighton process unit in the middle 90s was a professor. When I ran a shift of around 20 or so I had three graduate PCs and three others were on partially force funded OU degree courses. I had a sergeant with a double degree and another on an OU degree course. I would assume that other PCs were taking OU courses but were not funded and had decided not to share their private information with me. So two thirds of my sergeants had or were working towards degrees and probably a third of PCs were the same. The rate, I am assured, of officers with further and higher educations has increased since my day.
I gave evidence in 35 cases over two years - from 130+ full witness orders. I always found that the main error of defence lawyers was underestimating the intelligence of police (and lay) witnesses and the amount of research and effort that they put into cases.
I accept that lack of training is a problem but that is down to funding. It is probably going to get a lot worse with the swingeing cuts. However, the essence of operational police work is doing the right thing at the right time and that is difficult to teach in classrooms or to obtain from books. The ability to 'crack' the method has little if anything to do with education.
I used to refuse to give verbal legal advice as people tend to mishear what is said. I used to tell them to see a lawyer.
james280779 said:
I take offence to the 'not a lot of education'. Whilst I appreciate the counties generally have lower standards then the MET where I worked they still have to be VERY intellegent to work there.
I myself have a law degree 1st with an 85% average, 3 A levels and 11 GCSES (9 A-C and two I considered irrelevant) on top of that I was identified for accelerated promotion and scored off the chart. upon arrival in Australia I had to do numerous tests one of which was a physc test. I was identified within the top five percent intelligence within Australia
But you still can't spell. I myself have a law degree 1st with an 85% average, 3 A levels and 11 GCSES (9 A-C and two I considered irrelevant) on top of that I was identified for accelerated promotion and scored off the chart. upon arrival in Australia I had to do numerous tests one of which was a physc test. I was identified within the top five percent intelligence within Australia
It's called irony.
RH
Edited by Rovinghawk on Thursday 14th June 10:26
ED209 said:
If it was in her hand she was using it, even being used as a sat nav its still a mobile phone.
Using it as anav is probably more distracting that talking on the phone, sorry but she deserves to be stopped.
But the law states use FOR INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION. That suggests to me that you have to be communicating with a person, not a set of satellites.Using it as anav is probably more distracting that talking on the phone, sorry but she deserves to be stopped.
And has anyone questioned whether the fella at the Police Station was actually a copper as opposed to a civvy? Our local desk is staffed by civvy's, coppers are in short supply these days.
james280779 said:
ferrariF50lover said:
like the majority of police officers....not a lot of education
(All police officers are)..VERY intellegent (sic)Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff