In court on Wednesday, this should be fun!

[R.E.J.S]

First of all i now have NO PENALTY POINTS on my licence nor do i have any bans showing on my licence.

I have been accussed of driving whilst on my mobile. The amazing thing is for once in my life i am completely innocent.I have made one appearence and pleaded not guilty. On Wednesday the officer who has accsused me of this offence will be there to give his eveidence. I will get the opportunity to cross examine his evidence.

The facts are as follows:-

I was driving in the opposite direction at 30 M.P.H and they were traveling at approxamtley the same speed (combined speed of 60 M.P.H)

We were both driving under a bridge at the same time, he was the passenger in the panda car.

I was driving a black car, with black interior and a black fabric roof with slightly tinted glass.

I had my car brand new in 2005 and had it pre wired with a universal hands free telephone system.

The officers statement says that "when he seen me, i noticed him a quickly moved an object away from my right ear"

The statement says i was stopped at 18.00hrs

My defence:-

I did not use a hand held telephone.

I had a passenger/ witness that can confirm this.

I have a letter from Mercedes Benz explaining that i am the owner of the car and my car is fitted with a handsfree telephone system, which is a system that can only be installed when the car was built (in 2005)

I have wrote my telephone service provider asking them for the call activity on my account but they can only provide me with the out going call activity, the last call that was made was at 17.37 and then the next at 18.48 They cannot provide me with the incoming call activity, they can only give out this information if it is requested by the court.

The mobile telephone records will cost the court between £900-£1000

If found guilty i will appeal at Crown Court, for someone with a clean licence this is how far i will go to prove my innocence.

I will give you all an update on Wednesday.

[Jasandjules]

Good luck.

What was the Date which you were "spotted" on the phone?
Were streetlights on? Headlights?

[R.E.J.S]

Jasandjules said:

Good luck.

What was the Date which you were "spotted" on the phone?
Were streetlights on? Headlights?

No street lights were on it June 2007, it was a warm day as i recall.

I will keep you posted!

[HRG]

Seconded, I wish you luck. Just watch if the git tries to say you were on someone else's phone!!!

[Jasandjules]

R.E.J.S said:

No street lights were on it June 2007, it was a warm day as i recall.

I will keep you posted!

Ok, so what was the position of the sun? Was it behind you?

Just thinking of ways in which the officers vision was also disturbed to confirm that he would have needed eagle eyes to spot the "mobile" he claims you had..

[R.E.J.S]

HRG said:

Seconded, I wish you luck. Just watch if the git tries to say you were on someone else's phone!!!

Thanks, H.R.G i will let you know the outcome.

It's now there job to prove it, i will revert to my defence, my car is fitted with a UNIVERSAL handsfree car kit, i have the spec to show the Court that says it can be paired with an un limited amount of handsets.

[a boardman]

Why does it need a court order to release the information on incoming calls?

[Jasandjules]

a boardman said:

Why does it need a court order to release the information on incoming calls?

My First guess will be the data protection act protecting the numbers of those who made the calls.

[R.E.J.S]

Jasandjules said:

R.E.J.S said:

No street lights were on it June 2007, it was a warm day as i recall.

I will keep you posted!

Ok, so what was the position of the sun? Was it behind you?

Just thinking of ways in which the officers vision was also disturbed to confirm that he would have needed eagle eyes to spot the "mobile" he claims you had..

The sun was behind me, but the bridge we were under is quite dark.

[R.E.J.S]

a boardman said:

Why does it need a court order to release the information on incoming calls?

Exactly that, i can't even access my own telephone records.

[Jasandjules]

R.E.J.S said:

The sun was behind me, but the bridge we were under is quite dark.

How large was the bridge? How long would it take 2 vehicles with a combined speed of 60mph to proceed through it? As before that point he'd have the sun in his eyes, so exactly at what point did he claim you were using the mobile, and how long did he have to do so?

[derestrictor]

Please don't take this the wrong way but for the purposes of objectivity, can you assure venerable members that there was or were no agitating factors which persauded trafpol to pull you?

If all your tackle was hands free when they stopped you I'm perplexed as to precisely why they didn't merely acknowledge their error, apologise and move on?

You make the comment "for once in my life I'm innocent..?"

[10 Pence Short]

Did your passenger have a mobile phone with them at the time?

Aside from your pre-wired mobile phone, did you have a normal mobile phone with you?

[R.E.J.S]

derestrictor said:

Please don't take this the wrong way but for the purposes of objectivity, can you assure venerable members that there was or were no agitating factors which persauded trafpol to pull you?

If all your tackle was hands free when they stopped you I'm perplexed as to precisely why they didn't merely acknowledge their error, apologise and move on?

You make the comment "for once in my life I'm innocent..?"

I offered to show the officer the telephone system installed in my car, i'm assuming that he realised he had immediately made a mistake in pulling me over and was hoping i would just take his advice and contest the alleged offence in Court rather than him having to admit he had made a mistake face to face, i also refused to accept a fixed penalty notice for the alleged offence, under no circumstances was i accepting a fixed penalty for something i had not done!

I insisted to see his superior officer, who attended the seen, he also refused to take a look at my call register and my telephone system, so in answer to your question "I'm perplexed as to precisely why they didn't merely acknowledge their error, apologise and move on?" ... Your guess is as good as mine!

You also ask.... You make the comment "for once in my life I'm innocent..?"
Well the answer to this is that i have been stopped numerous times over the years for different motoring offences (speeding used to be a favorite pass time of mine)and i have always been in the wrong previously, i would always admit i am at fault if i am, and i am intelligent enough to understand that if i am guilty of a motoring offence then the chances are that a court is going to find me guilty so to save time and hassle i will always put my hands up if im in the wrong.

This is the first time i had been stopped for NOT committing an offence

To assure other members, i am sure the Police do not just pull anyone over just because they feel like it, they have just made a mistake on this occasion!

[R.E.J.S]

Jasandjules said:

R.E.J.S said:

The sun was behind me, but the bridge we were under is quite dark.

How large was the bridge? How long would it take 2 vehicles with a combined speed of 60mph to proceed through it? As before that point he'd have the sun in his eyes, so exactly at what point did he claim you were using the mobile, and how long did he have to do so?

These are questions i will be asking the Police officer on Wednesday in court, i will let you know his responses.

[10 Pence Short]

R.E.J.S said:

10 Pence Short said:

Did your passenger have a mobile phone with them at the time?

Aside from your pre-wired mobile phone, did you have a normal mobile phone with you?

I think you may have not understood, the pre wired system is installed in the car, it is not pre wired to the hand set. With regards to if my passenger had a phone or not the answer is i don't know, i did'nt ask him... but then again neither did the Police.

No, I didn't misunderstand you.

The point I am getting at is this; the fact that you have a pre-wired phone system does not amount to a solid defence of the charge. This is because having that system installed does not prevent you from using a different phone instead of your hands free one.

It's perfectly feasible that you were speaking on your friend's mobile phone, or that you were using one of your own. Most people, if not all, with a built-in phone system will also have a mobile phone which they use outside of their car.

Also remember that the offence isn't making a call, it's using a handheld mobile phone. You could have been listening to a funny ringtone, a pre-recorded message and so on...

So what it's going to come down to, is convincing the magistrate that you weren't holding a phone at the time the officer alleges you were. That is what you're up against.

I wish you the best of luck, but please don't pin your hopes on proving you have a hands-free phone in your car, because that defence is a bit of a red herring.

[R.E.J.S]

I have not pinned my hopes on this, but i feel i still need explain the telephone system is a blue tooth Mercedes system my phone was in the glove box rolling around, i do not have a telephone in the car.The phone use with my hands free system is the same one i use when not in the car.

My defence is based on me being innocent, the court have to prove i was on the phone which i was not, they will have to request the telephone records of any phones that they think were in the car at the time. What the Police should have done at the time was ask these questions about other telephones that may have been present at the time. The Magistrates may decide to convict me if they feel this case is to complicated for them, however a Circuit Judge at a Crown Court will have to take this in account, the Police do not have enough evidence to prove that i was on the telephone, they can apply for my telephone records which will prove this, they may also apply for my passengers telephone records which will again prove no call were being made or received at the time of the alleged offence, insufficient evidence.

No Red Herrings Present.

Edited by R.E.J.S on Saturday 19th April 15:23

Edited by R.E.J.S on Saturday 19th April 15:25

[10 Pence Short]

R.E.J.S said:

I have not pinned my hopes on this, but i feel i still need explain the telephone system is a blue tooth Mercedes system my phone was in the glove box rolling around, i do not have a telephone in the car.The phone use with my hands free system is the same one i use when not in the car.

My defence is based on me being innocent, the court have to prove i was on the phone which i was not, they will have to request the telephone records of any phones that they think were in the car at the time. What the Police should have done at the time was ask these questions about other telephones that may have been present at the time. The Magistrates may decide to convict me if they feel this case is to complicated for them, however a Circuit Judge at a Crown Court will have to take this in account, the Police do not have enough evidence to prove that i was on the telephone, they can apply for my telephone records which will prove this, they may also apply for my passengers telephone records which will again prove no call were being made or received at the time of the alleged offence, insufficient evidence.

No Red Herrings Present.

I think you're pinning your hopes too much on the 'phone call' element of this, and the fact that they have to 'prove' you were using your phone.

What they have, is a police officer, who's prepared to go on oath and say he did see you use your mobile phone. All you have in evidence is your word that you did not. It's your word against his.

As far as I'm aware, the actual legislation is worded as follows:

Legislation said:

"Mobile telephones
110. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using -


(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or

(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)."

Notice that the legislation says 'using', rather than 'making a call'. Using could be simply holding it and switching it on/off.


Please don't assume I'm taking sides, but I wouldn't like to think you turn up in court being extremely confident of yourself only to be proven guilty when you didn't think you could.

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Saturday 19th April 15:39

[Globulator]

The whole point of creating a police state, and a punishment system based upon being guilty until you prove beyond any doubt that you are innocent, is that your actual innocence is quite irrelevant.

Especially when there's money in it for the state and another 'crime solved' for the force.

However, the very best of luck, and I wish you well and hope you win.

[10 Pence Short]

Globulator said:

However, the very best of luck, and I wish you well and hope you win.

Seconded.