Police error, complaint upheld, doing me anyway! Defend?!
Discussion
Sorry, I don't often visit this forum but I'd like some help if anyone's able to offer any please.
It's not that complicated of a situation but takes a while to explain I'm afraid. I'll try to be as concise as I can but please ask if you require any more details:
I was stopped on the M60 by an unmarked car (as it happens I'd recognised what it was just before being pulled) which had followed me along Liverpool Road and on to the motorway. I got in the back of the car, was advised I was being video recorded and the officer alleged I'd been using a mobile phone. There was some dialogue between us, she checked my licence & verified it, then wrote out a ticket and explained that I was likely to be offered an awareness course, fixed penalty or I could go to court. On the ticket she'd written that I'd said "I don't understand what's going on" (which had been part of our dialogue) and asked me to sign it as acknowledgement.
I later checked the ticket and she'd completed the Ethnicity section as: "Officer defined (6+1)" as 1 and "Self defined (16+1)" as W1. I was never asked my ethnicity so she clearly made it up (and got it wrong). I made a complaint via the GMP website, which was initially acknowledged but I had to chase up a week later, it was then looked into by an Inspector, the officer admitted it and has been reprimanded.
I requested the in-car recording, it was obtained and I went along to the police station. It turns out there was a fault with the car (for which it's now in their workshops) and it was only recording audio internally. The recording they have is of the rear of my car on the motorway hard shoulder (it was only started recording just before I got in the police car, despite it being normal procedure for it to be always recording whilst they're on patrol - apparently the officer's been told off for that too) with the audio of the officer and myself inside the police car, none of which is particularly exciting except it proves I wasn't asked my ethnicity. It's actually my suspicion that this officer and many others likely routinely complete this box on their forms without actually asking the alleged offender, but I understand that's just me speculating.
The official complaint response I got states "the officer had failed to ask you your ‘self defined’ ethnicity, furthermore the officer went on to record if for you without your consent" but goes on to state that the fact the officer didn't deal with things correctly is not a barrier to prosecution (I'd asked if it was).
So, my question is what's the likely chance of success defending myself in court against an officer's sworn statement when they're proven that they don't follow procedures correctly and make things up, or alternatively what's the chances of the CPS dropping the prosecution for the same reason (likely after an initial court hearing I'm told)?
It's not that complicated of a situation but takes a while to explain I'm afraid. I'll try to be as concise as I can but please ask if you require any more details:
I was stopped on the M60 by an unmarked car (as it happens I'd recognised what it was just before being pulled) which had followed me along Liverpool Road and on to the motorway. I got in the back of the car, was advised I was being video recorded and the officer alleged I'd been using a mobile phone. There was some dialogue between us, she checked my licence & verified it, then wrote out a ticket and explained that I was likely to be offered an awareness course, fixed penalty or I could go to court. On the ticket she'd written that I'd said "I don't understand what's going on" (which had been part of our dialogue) and asked me to sign it as acknowledgement.
I later checked the ticket and she'd completed the Ethnicity section as: "Officer defined (6+1)" as 1 and "Self defined (16+1)" as W1. I was never asked my ethnicity so she clearly made it up (and got it wrong). I made a complaint via the GMP website, which was initially acknowledged but I had to chase up a week later, it was then looked into by an Inspector, the officer admitted it and has been reprimanded.
I requested the in-car recording, it was obtained and I went along to the police station. It turns out there was a fault with the car (for which it's now in their workshops) and it was only recording audio internally. The recording they have is of the rear of my car on the motorway hard shoulder (it was only started recording just before I got in the police car, despite it being normal procedure for it to be always recording whilst they're on patrol - apparently the officer's been told off for that too) with the audio of the officer and myself inside the police car, none of which is particularly exciting except it proves I wasn't asked my ethnicity. It's actually my suspicion that this officer and many others likely routinely complete this box on their forms without actually asking the alleged offender, but I understand that's just me speculating.
The official complaint response I got states "the officer had failed to ask you your ‘self defined’ ethnicity, furthermore the officer went on to record if for you without your consent" but goes on to state that the fact the officer didn't deal with things correctly is not a barrier to prosecution (I'd asked if it was).
So, my question is what's the likely chance of success defending myself in court against an officer's sworn statement when they're proven that they don't follow procedures correctly and make things up, or alternatively what's the chances of the CPS dropping the prosecution for the same reason (likely after an initial court hearing I'm told)?
After reading that and reading between the lines in seems you were using your phone and now you're trying to get off on a technicality.
Take the course and learn from your mistakes.
If you wasn't on the phone then I'd fight it out of principle.
Take the course and learn from your mistakes.
If you wasn't on the phone then I'd fight it out of principle.
Edited by Diablos-666 on Monday 9th September 18:03
What are you being prosecuted for - speeding or using a mobile phone whilst driving? If the latter you should have had an endorsable fixed penalty notice end of. If speeding option of awareness training within a certain speed theshold for a price but no points!
Making a complaint does not exempt you from the normal course of justice as most complaints are held 'sub-judice' until after any criminal procedings.
It sounds to me you made a policy complaint, in that the officer did not complete the correct boxes etc rather than a 'conduct' complaint. Policy matters will be dealt with quite quickly whilst conduct would be held in abeyance if of sufficient seriousness.
Go to court and challenge it you have two hopes - No hope and Bob Hope.
Bottom line is a hands free kit can cost less than a tenner
Making a complaint does not exempt you from the normal course of justice as most complaints are held 'sub-judice' until after any criminal procedings.
It sounds to me you made a policy complaint, in that the officer did not complete the correct boxes etc rather than a 'conduct' complaint. Policy matters will be dealt with quite quickly whilst conduct would be held in abeyance if of sufficient seriousness.
Go to court and challenge it you have two hopes - No hope and Bob Hope.
Bottom line is a hands free kit can cost less than a tenner
Apparently whether you're on the phone or not doesn't matter in the slightest - if you have it in your hand, you're guilty of the offence (even if, for example, you're moving it from your shirt pocket to the centre console in order that it doesn't distract you whilst driving). Seems ridiculous to me, but that's the law.
Zingari said:
What are you being prosecuted for - speeding or using a mobile phone whilst driving? If the latter you should have had an endorsable fixed penalty notice end of. If speeding option of awareness training within a certain speed theshold for a price but no points!
Thanks for your response. Speed was not an issue - they now do "driver retraining courses" for things besides speeding. The alleged offence is "using a hand held mobile phone whist driving" contrary to R110(1) RV(Con & Use) Regs 86 S41D RTA & Sch 2 ROTA.thegoose said:
Apparently whether you're on the phone or not doesn't matter in the slightest - if you have it in your hand, you're guilty of the offence (even if, for example, you're moving it from your shirt pocket to the centre console in order that it doesn't distract you whilst driving). Seems ridiculous to me, but that's the law.
Seems entirely fair to me.This story's not that unusual, sadly:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415859/Ho...
I'm sure you'll hear lots more like it on your course.
You know the law - why even pick your phone up when you're driving?
thegoose said:
Sorry, I don't often visit this forum but I'd like some help if anyone's able to offer any please.
So, my question is what's the likely chance of success defending myself in court against an officer's sworn statement when they're proven that they don't follow procedures correctly and make things up, or alternatively what's the chances of the CPS dropping the prosecution for the same reason (likely after an initial court hearing I'm told)?
Slim to nil. Possibly worth asking.So, my question is what's the likely chance of success defending myself in court against an officer's sworn statement when they're proven that they don't follow procedures correctly and make things up, or alternatively what's the chances of the CPS dropping the prosecution for the same reason (likely after an initial court hearing I'm told)?
This cunning loophole will not get you off the offence it sounds like you were committing.
Oh, and for reference I often didn't ask people their ethnicity during stops as I felt it an intrusive question which I felt uncomfortable asking. As a personal addition I feel it actually flys in the face of helping multiculturalism.
It's not in evidence and won't help you 'win'.
Suck it up, buttercup. Were you on the phone?
Oh, and for reference I often didn't ask people their ethnicity during stops as I felt it an intrusive question which I felt uncomfortable asking. As a personal addition I feel it actually flys in the face of helping multiculturalism.
It's not in evidence and won't help you 'win'.
Suck it up, buttercup. Were you on the phone?
carreauchompeur said:
On operational cars the child locks are always on, but you'd let them out immediately if they wished hence not 'detained'.
Clutching at straws on false imprisonment. If they indeed do offer 'awareness' courses for using your phone if it exempts you from penalty points I'd take this any day of the week. This country is getting too liberal, using a phone whilst driving you should get done. End of.Zingari said:
carreauchompeur said:
On operational cars the child locks are always on, but you'd let them out immediately if they wished hence not 'detained'.
Clutching at straws on false imprisonment. If they indeed do offer 'awareness' courses for using your phone if it exempts you from penalty points I'd take this any day of the week. This country is getting too liberal, using a phone whilst driving you should get done. End of.- have a nice face to face chat rather than being locked in the back of a car talking to the back of someones head.
carreauchompeur said:
...I often didn't ask people their ethnicity during stops as I felt it an intrusive question which I felt uncomfortable asking. As a personal addition I feel it actually flys in the face of helping multiculturalism.
Whilst I can sympathise with your opinion the fact remains, it's on the form and should always be completed after asking for the answer. The fact that you felt uncomfortable doing so doesn't allow you to make it up. This officer made it up and now has a permanent record about it on her service record. If the data being analysed is false then that really does fly in the face of helping multiculturalism - could it even be that the police are deliberately trying to manipulate the figures?
If I understand it correctly you want to plead not guilty and then try to create a doubt in the judges mind that the police officer is lying about you holding the mobile because she falsely completed part of the ticket?
If you are innocent then go for it.
If you are guilty then stop wasting everybody elses time and money.
If you are innocent then go for it.
If you are guilty then stop wasting everybody elses time and money.
thegoose said:
If the data being analysed is false then that really does fly in the face of helping multiculturalism - could it even be that the police are deliberately trying to manipulate the figures?
To me, multiculturalism is all about breaking down barriers. Everyone's equal.The monitoring form says to a subject "Here, put yourself in a box". Hence, I don't like it. And I don't like answering the question.
It's much like diversity monitoring when they ask you to define your sexuality. I don't think it's as straightforward as X, Y or Z, so I don't really like the question.
Self-defined ethnicity's a component, definitely, however in terms of blunt monitoring this could be just as easily achieved with the "officer defined ethnicity" box. Blunter, yes, but achieves the same aim of monitoring whether we're stopping a disproportionate number of BME people.
Are you white, and were you on the phone?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff