In court on Wednesday, this should be fun!

[vonhosen]

p1esk said:

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.

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.

Where I believe there is clear evidence of wrong doing in the Police I will say so. A clear example was the Milton case. He was acquitted of speeding, but I said that I personally didn't consider what he was doing amounted to a lawful use of the exemption.

[R.E.J.S]

Dwight VanDriver said:

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'm not calling the officer a liar, i also believe that he genuinely thinks he seen me on a mobile phone however this is not the case, but i know he has made a mistake, there are two major errors in his statement to prove this, these are the points that i will be high lighting to the court, using them as the angle of defence to prove that i am innocent. Once we completed our statements and if was "off the record if you like" the officer in question admitted that he was still quite new to the job, and thats why i think his superior refused to look at my car and my call register on my mobile phone.

I will be serving my own defence, and cross examining the officer myself, i will be making it clear that i am disputing if or not if he thinks he is right, but i will be asking him to admit that he has made another mistake. I don't for one minute think he is committing perjury or do i think he is putting his job at risk.

[Battenburg Bob]

Without commenting on this case, I'd like to clarify two things.

1. Magistrates often ignore the evidence of Officers and find for the defence.

2. Mobile phone tickets do not count in any way shape or form to 'crime' targets. It's not another crime cleared, detected or anything else.

If the OP has been wronged by an Officers (probably honestly held) mistake, then fight it in court. That's exactly what they are there for.

Edited by Battenburg Bob on Saturday 19th April 19:32

[Battenburg Bob]

Deleted...Repeat post for some reason!!

Edited by Battenburg Bob on Saturday 19th April 19:31

[vonhosen]

Battenburg Bob said:

Without commenting on this case, I'd like to clarify two thigs.

1. Magistrates often ignore the evidence of Officers and find for the defence.

2. Mobile phone tickets don not count in any way shape or form to 'crime' targets. It's not another crime cleared, detected or anything else.

If the OP has been wronged by an Officers (probably honestly held) mistake, then fight it in court. That's exactly what they are there for.

[slow_poke]

R.E.J.S said:

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.

You have an email, or a pm, one or t'other or those.......

[streaky]

10 Pence Short][ ... said:

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.

Indeed, but the legislation also defines a mobile telephone as:

Legislation said:

A hand-held device is something that "is or must be held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function."

The court could accept that "using" means using to make or receive a call (or perform some other communication function); not simply holding the 'phone or switching it on or off or anything else. Common usage (sorry!) of "using the phone" means answering a call or holding a conversation (or sending a text).

But the court might not accept that.

I have an occasional habit (can one have a habit that's only occasional?) of tugging my right ear. If I do that in the car it could easily appear (especially at a closing speed of 60mph) that I'd been holding a 'phone to my ear and dropped my hand suddenly on seeing the police car.

It would be a travesty - but sadly typical - if the OP were convicted on no evidence other than the word of a police officer who could not state with any certainty that it was a mobile telephone the accused was holding.

Good luck on Wednesday.

Streaky

Edited by streaky on Sunday 20th April 12:51

[odyssey2200]

IIRC holding a mobile phone to you ear to keep your ear warm was accepted in a court recently?

[ukwill]

Shirley, it would be as simple as the phone operator providing the call records for the 2 occupants in the car at the time of the alleged incident?

Or am I missing something?

[Flintstone]

I'm sitting on the 'more to this than we're being told' fence for now on the basis that the OP is clearly paraphrasing the officer's statement (already alluded to up there ^^^^^).

As always, we'd like to hear both sides but of course never will.

[JustinP1]

R.E.J.S said:

Dwight VanDriver said:

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'm not calling the officer a liar, i also believe that he genuinely thinks he seen me on a mobile phone however this is not the case, but i know he has made a mistake, there are two major errors in his statement to prove this, these are the points that i will be high lighting to the court, using them as the angle of defence to prove that i am innocent. Once we completed our statements and if was "off the record if you like" the officer in question admitted that he was still quite new to the job, and thats why i think his superior refused to look at my car and my call register on my mobile phone.

I will be serving my own defence, and cross examining the officer myself, i will be making it clear that i am disputing if or not if he thinks he is right, but i will be asking him to admit that he has made another mistake. I don't for one minute think he is committing perjury or do i think he is putting his job at risk.

My two penneth:

I have been in an almost identical situation, which I will not repeat for the sake of the regulars, but suffice to say that three officers had made observations that gave them circumstantial evidence that I had committed an offence.

I was innocent, and told them so, and similarly to your situation, I ended up seeing them in court.

I think your attitude is right, as I thought of my case, the officers were misguided, not liars. They reported what they 'thought' they saw and embellished on this. What you have to rethink though is your focus. You no not have to 'prove yourself innocent'. You just have to show that the evidence presented against you does not prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, asking him or getting him to admit he has made a mistake is too blunt, and he will clam up, and if it is his pride which has got him thus far, he might continue to repeat his stance. You need a clever line of questioning by getting him to admit to what you want, but in a roundabout way he won't be able to pick up on until he is already around the roundabout and out the other side... In my case, I proved reasonable doubt in the testimony of one of the officers in just two questions.

If you think about it, you are 2-0 up already. On the face of it there are two pieces of evidence. One person who believes they saw something, and one person who actually *knows* what happened. The important fact here is that if you give evidence, and you are believed then this alone is enough to give reasonable doubt. However, I would be using cross-examination to nail the point home. Half a dozen clever questions will ruin the officer's testimony.

What *exactly* does the statement say about what he saw? At the start of the thread it makes no mention of a phone, just he thought he saw a hand action, but later on you look like you quote something else. This is very important. In court, the officer may say he saw a phone, but in his statement he might not mention a phone.

Basically, if he cannot say and convince the court that he saw a phone - then there is no evidence against you. All you have to do is make him admit that you *just might* not have had a phone in your hand.

If you want a hand with some further lines of questioning, let me know.

Edited by JustinP1 on Sunday 20th April 01:12

[streaky]

JustinP1 said:

... my case, the officers were misguided, not liars. They reported what they 'thought' they saw and embellished on this.

The moment they "embellished" their evidence they became liars [Sgt Joe Friday]"All we want are the facts, ma'am."[/Sgt Joe Friday] - Streaky

[gozomark]

ukwill said:

Shirley, it would be as simple as the phone operator providing the call records for the 2 occupants in the car at the time of the alleged incident?

Or am I missing something?

to get the call records of the two occupants you need the call records of any mobiles that were in the car - unless the police searched the car for all mobiles, how do we know what mobiles (or more precisely sim cards) we need the records for ?

Edited by gozomark on Sunday 20th April 08:46

[vonhosen]

ukwill said:

Shirley, it would be as simple as the phone operator providing the call records for the 2 occupants in the car at the time of the alleged incident?

Or am I missing something?

I've got three mobiles myself, which one do you want the records for today ?

[Jasandjules]

vonhosen said:

I've got three mobiles myself, which one do you want the records for today ?

All of them of course. That way we can eliminate them as not receiving a call at the requisite time, thus negating the offence.

[gozomark]

vonhosen said:

ukwill said:

Shirley, it would be as simple as the phone operator providing the call records for the 2 occupants in the car at the time of the alleged incident?

Or am I missing something?

I've got three mobiles myself, which one do you want the records for today ?

and we only have your word for it that you don't have a 4th one...

[vonhosen]

Jasandjules said:

vonhosen said:

I've got three mobiles myself, which one do you want the records for today ?

All of them of course. That way we can eliminate them as not receiving a call at the requisite time, thus negating the offence.

Yeah but if someone turns up at court having requested the details of just one & produces those as evidence that they weren't on the phone, that doesn't mean they weren't on 'a' phone.

[dxb335d]

Its a dodgy one, and i think the old bill are making mistakes on these cases. I mean you might go to touch your head as a copper is driving round the corner, that does not mean your driving whilst on the phone thus driving illegally. Although to the copper your hand was to your head and he jumps the gun thinking your on the phone. I am unsure of what the outcome will be.

Good luck though chap!


Ccarlos

[WildCat]

A lorry driver was found guilty of "using a Handy" whilst driving on M1 in S Yorks patch.

His crime? He had the Handy in coat pocket. It jarred into his back so he took it out und tossed it on the dash.

Unfortunately - overtaking police crew spot this. He get pulled und done for "using the phone" - even though the phone was switched off

He go on the Whine prog to warn folk out there that the law interpret just holding or picking up the device as "using". Loophole was on the prog und said he was sure he could find the loop in the law to test this conviction on appeal. His problem was that the lorry driver simply pleaded guilty after a lot of stressful appearances in the court prior to this

Only you have witness. Ist the witness "independent" though or perceived as "objective/independent" by the courts.

I would get your lawyer to focus on the logistics as to how he saw this in the dark.. with tints on the glass und be so certain - given this car fit with handy free with phone in glove compartment. Mine ist usually locked inside .. in a case also locked. It always switched off too!

Best of luck in court .. but do not take anything for granted. Just state your case calmly und straightforwardly.

[JustinP1]

streaky said:

JustinP1 said:

... my case, the officers were misguided, not liars. They reported what they 'thought' they saw and embellished on this.

The moment they "embellished" their evidence they became liars [Sgt Joe Friday]"All we want are the facts, ma'am."[/Sgt Joe Friday] - Streaky

I see your point, maybe I am too 'understanding' of human psychology.

I think the 'lead' officer didn't want to back down in front of the trainee. Secondly, officer 2 and the trainee later on obviously didn't want to give statements contradicting the lead officer. Thirdly, They all seemingly wanted to support each other enough to make sure their statements ensued conviction - or more pertinently, that I would see the damning statements and plead guilty thinking I had no hope.

What I mean is they weren't lying in the sense that they just 'created' an offence. I think it just highlights how both assumptions and memories can get distorted. If three supposedly 'experts' in this got it that wrong, and let bias come into their testimonies that much, it just shows how inaccurate a witness statement from a member of the public may be.