Police error, complaint upheld, doing me anyway! Defend?!

[Walford]

Rovinghawk said:

Moonhawk said:

My point was simply that letting the person off with a crime they have committed........

The evidence of that crime being heavily tainted by the fact that the prosecution case is based on the word of a proven liar.
The law involves 'beyond reasonable doubt'; if you won't accept that part of the law, how can you demand another part of the law being applied to use of a phone?

Do they not check phone companies call log

.

[marshalla]

Walford said:

Do they not check phone companies call log

.

Not this again. You don't have to make a call in order to be "using" the handset.

[walm]

Walford said:

Do they not check phone companies call log

No need. The offence is handling the phone or whatever. No requirement to be making a call. (i.e. writing a text is just as bad...)

All you need is the word of a policeman and you can be done. (Or any witness I guess, but you know, policemen are so reliable you see.)

Frankly I think it is a good law. Shame it is being undermined by poor professional standards.

[Eclassy]

walm said:

No need. The offence is handling the phone or whatever. No requirement to be making a call. (i.e. writing a text is just as bad...)

All you need is the word of a policeman and you can be done. (Or any witness I guess, but you know, policemen are so reliable you see.)

Frankly I think it is a good law. Shame it is being undermined by poor professional standards.

I recently recorded an assault on me with a 'camera' whilst in control of a car. I have provided this evidence to the police as part of the investigation and I am sure there is going to be one overzealous policeman who is going to ask what I recorded with. At a point you can see me (not clearly) in the reflection in the glass holding the 'camera'.

I wonder if they'll try to do me for this even though the 'camera' saved my window from being broken and me being physically attacked.

[Terminator X]

goldblum said:

I suppose the law has to start and finish somewhere, or "no officer I was just turning it off" would be everyone's excuse.

The OP wasn't doing that though, he was using his phone, and that makes him a risk to anyone else on the road.

C'mon the offence should be making a call which could be checked via call logs. Far easier of course to make it touching the phone which is wide open to abuse and indeed does seem to be abused.

TX.

[Vaud]

Terminator X said:

C'mon the offence should be making a call which could be checked via call logs. Far easier of course to make it touching the phone which is wide open to abuse and indeed does seem to be abused.

TX.

But the issue is being fundamentally distracted - texting, reading texts, looking at a map, etc.

[walm]

Terminator X said:

C'mon the offence should be making a call which could be checked via call logs. Far easier of course to make it touching the phone which is wide open to abuse and indeed does seem to be abused.

TX.

So texting is fine?

[Moonhawk]

Rovinghawk said:

The evidence of that crime being heavily tainted by the fact that the prosecution case is based on the word of a proven liar.
The law involves 'beyond reasonable doubt'; if you won't accept that part of the law, how can you demand another part of the law being applied to use of a phone?

It may or may not be - I guess that could only be determined by examination of the evidence. To impose a blanket policy of letting criminals off just to teach the police a lesson isnt a good idea IMO.

[Rovinghawk]

Moonhawk said:

It may or may not be - I guess that could only be determined by examination of the evidence. To impose a blanket policy of letting criminals off just to teach the police a lesson isnt a good idea IMO.

It's not to teach the police a lesson, it's because a conviction gained from the testimony of a proven liar is fundamentally unsafe.

I don't want to live in a country where I can be convicted because a proven liar says I've done something wrong. Do you?

[Red 4]

Rovinghawk said:

It's not to teach the police a lesson, it's because a conviction gained from the testimony of a proven liar is fundamentally unsafe.
I don't want to live in a country where I can be convicted because a liar says I've done something wrong. Do you?

Where are you moving to where that possibilty does not exist ?

[Moonhawk]

Rovinghawk said:

It's not to teach the police a lesson, it's because a conviction gained from the testimony of a proven liar is fundamentally unsafe.

Then tell that to the person I responded to. My replies were made entirely within the context of their post.

[Rovinghawk]

Red 4 said:

Where are you moving to where that possibilty does not exist ?

I'm pleased to live in a country with predominantly honest, competent courts.

I know a few judges & thoroughly respect their intelligence & integrity.

[Red 4]

Rovinghawk said:

I know a few judges & thoroughly respect their intelligence & integrity.

Yep, me too, or at least I've met a few (judges that is - I do not necessarily include magistrates in that sentiment )

Don't worry though, the judiciary is next on the government's hit list ...

[Rovinghawk]

Red 4 said:

the judiciary is next on the government's hit list ...

They're not exactly a sitting duck- I think we'll have a good judiciary for quite some time.

[Terminator X]

walm said:

Terminator X said:

C'mon the offence should be making a call which could be checked via call logs. Far easier of course to make it touching the phone which is wide open to abuse and indeed does seem to be abused.

TX.

So texting is fine?

Call log / text log whatever. "Using" the phone shouldn't include just picking it up or touching it imho.

TX.

[randlemarcus]

Actually, what happened to the celebrity using it as an dictaphone? Did they change the legislation?

[walm]

Terminator X said:

walm said:

Terminator X said:

C'mon the offence should be making a call which could be checked via call logs. Far easier of course to make it touching the phone which is wide open to abuse and indeed does seem to be abused.

TX.

So texting is fine?

Call log / text log whatever. "Using" the phone shouldn't include just picking it up or touching it imho.

TX.

So writing the text or an email is fine but sending it isn't?
What if I wrote one while outside of the car and it failed to send and then resent automatically while I was on the move?

I don't mean to be annoyingly pedantic but given the sophistication of the current devices the damn thing might be up to god knows what while safely ensconced in the glovebox!!

What if you were calling using bluetooth? - you would still have a record of the call!

They should really employ people full time to think about this legislation... oh wait...

[Hol]

Moonhawk said:

fluffnik said:

All liars must be purged from the police if it is to retain credibility.

I agree......

Just add the Criminals themselves to that list and we will have a utopian legal system.

If you add in those types of lawyers that 'knowingly' defend a guilty person and crime would probably drop.

[Timsta]

Hol said:

Just add the Criminals themselves to that list and we will have a utopian legal system.

If you add in those types of lawyers that 'knowingly' defend a guilty person and crime would probably drop.

Lawyers that knowingly defend guilty people are a very important part of the legal process. They are the one part you should never get rid of. They are the ones that ensure that the police AND CPS have to do their job properly.

[Zeeky]

What is meant by 'knowingly'? If the client admits the offence he should be advised to seek alternative representation if he wishes to plead not guilty.

There is no need for a lawyer to mislead the Court.