In court on Wednesday, this should be fun!
Discussion
I too wish you all the best and look forward to hearing how it goes on Wednesday.
You're right that they have to find you guilty. However, the word of an officer on oath seems to be considered by the courts to be 100% fact. The result is that you have to prove your innocence.
Now you would think that your defence -- that you have a hands-free system and your phone goes in the glovebox -- would be pretty watertight. However, can you prove that you phone was in the glovebox on that occasion? Will your passenger speak as a witness?
Don't forget that the court is not interested in the truth or in justice. It's interested in a result. The one who can put their side of the argument best wins. All sorts of things that we think are important, like Codes of Practice, are routinely ignored by courts. As far as I can tell, justice only happens by accident. Don't feel too bad if you are found guilty -- it doesn't really mean anything.
You're right that they have to find you guilty. However, the word of an officer on oath seems to be considered by the courts to be 100% fact. The result is that you have to prove your innocence.
Now you would think that your defence -- that you have a hands-free system and your phone goes in the glovebox -- would be pretty watertight. However, can you prove that you phone was in the glovebox on that occasion? Will your passenger speak as a witness?
Don't forget that the court is not interested in the truth or in justice. It's interested in a result. The one who can put their side of the argument best wins. All sorts of things that we think are important, like Codes of Practice, are routinely ignored by courts. As far as I can tell, justice only happens by accident. Don't feel too bad if you are found guilty -- it doesn't really mean anything.
The Police Officers statement says " He seen me talking on a mobile phone" so in response to if i was switching the phone on/off etc.. may not be relevant.
Correctly the Police Officer is prepared to swear on oath, which is fine because i'm not accusing him of being a liar i am accusing him of making a mistake! I fully understand that he is doing his job but sometimes people make mistakes, even Police officers.
There is one final point of defence that i have, but i would rather not disclose that at this point, once i have made my appearance on Wednesday i will let you know the outcome.
Correctly the Police Officer is prepared to swear on oath, which is fine because i'm not accusing him of being a liar i am accusing him of making a mistake! I fully understand that he is doing his job but sometimes people make mistakes, even Police officers.
There is one final point of defence that i have, but i would rather not disclose that at this point, once i have made my appearance on Wednesday i will let you know the outcome.
R.E.J.S said:
The officers statement says that "when he seen me, i noticed him a quickly moved an object away from my right ear"
Even if that were the case what leads the office to conclude that that object was a Mobile phone?To move from seeing someone move their hand away from their ear to actually spotting that the hand was holding an object as small as a mobile phone and to then conclude that it was indeed a mobile phone is nothing more that guess work.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Given the closing speeds of your 2 vehicles and the priorities of having to negotiate a bridge it would suggest that the officer was not actually concentrating on his driving.
Are the CPS persuing a case of DWDCA against him?
How can a person approaching with a closing speed which was probably at least 60 mph actually identify a mibile phone?
His statement scores a complete own goal IMHO
copper said:
i noticed him a quickly moved an object away from my right ear"
Can he, under oath identify the object as a phone?If he says he can why does his statement not say that?
Did he ever clearly, beyond a reasonable doubt, see you using the phone?
NO!!
Case dismissed
Edited by odyssey2200 on Saturday 19th April 17:00
10 Pence Short said:
Just remember that magistrates are one of the few groups of people who have heard every single excuse in the book. It takes a lot to make them believe you over a police officer.
Best of luck.
They must be getting desperate for recruits, these days, too. I know for a fact that a male magistrate exists who sports a pony tail which quite frankly, is unacceptable.Best of luck.
Your tale of woe sounds from what you've said, borderline farcical.
Get a decent brief and give 'em both barrels.
The mindless persecution of Messrs.E.Man & H.Dog for nothing less than the maintenance of the UK's doughnut industry continues apace...
Best of luck.
odyssey2200 said:
R.E.J.S said:
The officers statement says that "when he seen me, i noticed him a quickly moved an object away from my right ear"
Even if that were the case what leads the office to conclude that that object was a Mobile phone?To move from seeing someone move their hand away from their ear to actually spotting that the hand was holding an object as small as a mobile phone and to then conclude that it was indeed a mobile phone is nothing more that guess work.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Given the closing speeds of your 2 vehicles and the priorities of having to negotiate a bridge it would suggest that the officer was not actually concentrating on his driving.
Are the CPS persuing a case of DWDCA against him?
How can a person approaching with a closing speed which was probably at least 60 mph actually identify a mibile phone?
His statement scores a complete own goal IMHO
copper said:
i noticed him a quickly moved an object away from my right ear"
Can he, under oath identify the object as a phone?If he says he can why does his statement not say that?
Did he ever clearly, beyond a reasonable doubt, see you using the phone?
NO!!
Case dismissed
This makes interesting reading and , while I you have my sympathy, both Peter Ward and myself have both recently had cases go to court knowing we were innocent and still been found guilty, despite more than "reasonable doubt".
Before you enter the court there are a couple of things you ought to bear in mind:
1) if you lose and choose to go to the crown court it will undoubtable take another year to get there.
2) once in the crown court a judge is VERY unlikely to find wrongdoing in either a Policeman's statement or the Magistrates Court findings.
3) If you are choosing to cross examine the Officer in the witness box yourself be aware that he will have been in that position more times than you and he'll have been trained to give what answers are necessary to portray the "truth" and how to avoid answering a straightforward question.!
Best of luck anyway!
I just ought to add, my stepfather was stopped at a set of traffic lights once by an officer following him and was accused of using his mobile phone. There was one small flaw in the officers observation - which only became apparent when my stepfather had let him go on for a good 5 minutes and start to write in his note book - My stepfather doesn't own a mobile phone and there wasn't one in his car! What the officer had in fact observed was the ol' boy scratching his ear and removing his glasses!
Before you enter the court there are a couple of things you ought to bear in mind:
1) if you lose and choose to go to the crown court it will undoubtable take another year to get there.
2) once in the crown court a judge is VERY unlikely to find wrongdoing in either a Policeman's statement or the Magistrates Court findings.
3) If you are choosing to cross examine the Officer in the witness box yourself be aware that he will have been in that position more times than you and he'll have been trained to give what answers are necessary to portray the "truth" and how to avoid answering a straightforward question.!
Best of luck anyway!
I just ought to add, my stepfather was stopped at a set of traffic lights once by an officer following him and was accused of using his mobile phone. There was one small flaw in the officers observation - which only became apparent when my stepfather had let him go on for a good 5 minutes and start to write in his note book - My stepfather doesn't own a mobile phone and there wasn't one in his car! What the officer had in fact observed was the ol' boy scratching his ear and removing his glasses!
justamin said:
I just ought to add, my stepfather was stopped at a set of traffic lights once by an officer following him and was accused of using his mobile phone. There was one small flaw in the officers observation - which only became apparent when my stepfather had let him go on for a good 5 minutes and start to write in his note book - My stepfather doesn't own a mobile phone and there wasn't one in his car! What the officer had in fact observed was the ol' boy scratching his ear and removing his glasses!
I would have been tempted to let that go to court!!
odyssey2200 said:
WOW
Vonhosen does his
"I AM THE LAW" bit
The police are always right,
the law can never be wrong.
It's not me prejudging any outcome, it's you doing that without seeing all the evidence & with your pigeon transcript of how you see proceedings panning out.Vonhosen does his
"I AM THE LAW" bit
The police are always right,
the law can never be wrong.
Edited by odyssey2200 on Saturday 19th April 17:16
Giving advice is one thing & not the same as just airing a lot of baseless prediction
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 19th April 17:26
vonhosen said:
odyssey2200 said:
WOW
Vonhosen does his
"I AM THE LAW" bit
The police are always right,
the law can never be wrong.
It's not me prejudging any outcome, it's you doing that without seeing all the evidence & with your pigeon transcript of how you see proceedings panning out.Vonhosen does his
"I AM THE LAW" bit
The police are always right,
the law can never be wrong.
Edited by odyssey2200 on Saturday 19th April 17:16
Giving advice is different to just airing a lot of groundless
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 19th April 17:24
But I suppose I should know better than to ever doubt the word of an infallible BiB,
People specially genetically engineered to have super human eyesight and to never be mistaken.
A person who says in his statement he saw an object and then, due to his supercop powers to be able to replay the events and zoon in on a mobile phone!
The officer involved
Edited by odyssey2200 on Saturday 19th April 17:34
odyssey2200 said:
vonhosen said:
odyssey2200 said:
WOW
Vonhosen does his
"I AM THE LAW" bit
The police are always right,
the law can never be wrong.
It's not me prejudging any outcome, it's you doing that without seeing all the evidence & with your pigeon transcript of how you see proceedings panning out.Vonhosen does his
"I AM THE LAW" bit
The police are always right,
the law can never be wrong.
Edited by odyssey2200 on Saturday 19th April 17:16
Giving advice is different to just airing a lot of groundless
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 19th April 17:24
But I suppose I should know better than to ever doubt the word of an infallible BiB,
People specially genetically engineered to have super human eyesight and to never be mistaken.
A person who says in his statement he saw an object and then, due to his supercop powers to be able to replay the events and zoon in on a mobile phone!
The officer involved
[pic] http://geekofalltrades.files.wordpress.com/2007/07...
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 19th April 17:36
Von
Are you familiar with the term Humour?
Its what smilies are usually used to indicate.
At which point did I give advise?
And I notice that you never actually offer any support, advise, of do anything other than defend the infallibility of the Police, in your opinion.
Do you honestly think it reasonable for an officer to make a vague writen statement and then translate that into a definate detailed statement of fact under oath in court and have that change of detail go unquestioned?
Silly question really.
Are you familiar with the term Humour?
Its what smilies are usually used to indicate.
At which point did I give advise?
And I notice that you never actually offer any support, advise, of do anything other than defend the infallibility of the Police, in your opinion.
Do you honestly think it reasonable for an officer to make a vague writen statement and then translate that into a definate detailed statement of fact under oath in court and have that change of detail go unquestioned?
Silly question really.
odyssey2200 said:
Von
Are you familiar with the term Humour?
Its what smilies are usually used to indicate.
You used one which was Are you familiar with the term Humour?
Its what smilies are usually used to indicate.
& I used one which was 
odyssey2200 said:
At which point did I give advise?
I said you weren't aware of what will be said in court & basically offering opinionated odyssey2200 said:
And I notice that you never actually offer any support, advise, of do anything other than defend the infallibility of the Police, in your opinion.
I Don't think you read all of them then.odyssey2200 said:
Do you honestly think it reasonable for an officer to make a vague writen statement and then translate that into a definate detailed statement of fact under oath in court and have that change of detail go unquestioned?
Silly question really.
I trust the court to look at all the evidence, decide on it's veracity & then rule appropriately on that.Silly question really.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 19th April 18:02
To some extent I am with VH on this.
I find it incredible with so much available to report that an Officer would stop and report someone not committing an offence, go to Court, commit perjury, lose his job for a tuppence halfpenny offence.
I cannot of course deny that was the case as only the Officer and driver involved can confirm.
dvd
I find it incredible with so much available to report that an Officer would stop and report someone not committing an offence, go to Court, commit perjury, lose his job for a tuppence halfpenny offence.
I cannot of course deny that was the case as only the Officer and driver involved can confirm.
dvd
R.E.J.S said:
The officers statement says that "when he seen me, i noticed him a quickly moved an object away from my right ear"
Good grief! That looks like our money being wasted on that officer's education!
BTW, why did you need to move the object away from the officer's right ear?
I do wonder if one should rely on the evidence of an officer who writes like that. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
justamin said:
I just ought to add, my stepfather was stopped at a set of traffic lights once by an officer following him and was accused of using his mobile phone. There was one small flaw in the officers observation - which only became apparent when my stepfather had let him go on for a good 5 minutes and start to write in his note book - My stepfather doesn't own a mobile phone and there wasn't one in his car! What the officer had in fact observed was the ol' boy scratching his ear and removing his glasses!
Rather worrying for people who may have a mobile phone in their possession isn't it! Perhaps it would be safer to put the mobile in the boot when travelling by car next time as it looks like the latest tax avoidance tip.Death by 1000 cuts, only 99 cuts left to go.
vonhosen said:
odyssey2200 said:
WOW
Vonhosen does his
"I AM THE LAW" bit
The police are always right,
the law can never be wrong.
It's not me prejudging any outcome, it's you doing that without seeing all the evidence & with your pigeon transcript of how you see proceedings panning out.Vonhosen does his
"I AM THE LAW" bit
The police are always right,
the law can never be wrong.
Edited by odyssey2200 on Saturday 19th April 17:16
Giving advice is one thing & not the same as just airing a lot of baseless prediction
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 19th April 17:26
Best wishes all,
Dave.
My mate was in court for exactly the same thing.
He had exactly (and I mean exactly) same defence as you, he has a parrot installed in his car - even down to not being able to get hold of incoming mobile calls from his provider. Also - he never had a witness.
He was found not guilty. This was approx 6 weeks ago.
He had exactly (and I mean exactly) same defence as you, he has a parrot installed in his car - even down to not being able to get hold of incoming mobile calls from his provider. Also - he never had a witness.
He was found not guilty. This was approx 6 weeks ago.
odyssey2200 said:
Von
Are you familiar with the term Humour?
Its what smilies are usually used to indicate.
At which point did I give advise?
And I notice that you never actually offer any support, advice, or do anything other than defend the infallibility of the Police, in your opinion.
I don't think that's quite right. Von does occasionally offer support and advice, but admittedly it's hard to recall instances where he has seemed willing to accept that the police are in the wrong - which I would think they're bound to be at times.Are you familiar with the term Humour?
Its what smilies are usually used to indicate.
At which point did I give advise?
And I notice that you never actually offer any support, advice, or do anything other than defend the infallibility of the Police, in your opinion.
The problem for us, including Von, is that we only hear one side of the story, and it might be right, but we really don't know. Good luck to the OP anyhow, let's hope a fair result emerges.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff