In court on Wednesday, this should be fun!

[Steve Murr]

Im quite enjoying reading these threads & look forward to adding my comments to more of them as we go along-

I think the OP has,as long as he has disclosed all the information enough evidence to discredit the polices statements & observations-

You would suspect that in a typical case like this the bench will initially be more inclined to believe the officer, as they uphold the law & if it comes down to it the policemans word will be taken over the accused- However as said, there seems to be enough presented to ensure that the bench are more inclined to have considerable doubt in their minds that the officer could have made an error- There is enough mitigating circumstances -

I think in their minds it will be a close run thing but given the facts put infront of us the decision will be in favour of the OP-
Case dismissed-

Steve

Edited by Steve Murr on Wednesday 23 April 08:56

[mrmr96]

What was the result?

I hope the OP's not been banged up and hence unable to post!

[R.E.J.S]

The Verdict!!!!!!

First off all thanks to you all for your support!!!!!

As you all know i was summons to Court today, my hearing time was at 2pm. As i have said all along i never committed the offence of driving whilst on a mobile phone.

The main contributing factors that had in my defence was that my vehicle was factory fitted with a hands free car kit, i had a witness to back up that i was not using a handheld phone, the officer who reported me for the offence was new to the job, he, his colleague and his superior refused to look at my call register of my phone, they refused to search my car when i offered them to for them to inspect my handsfree system, the Police officers in question were traveling in the opposite direction, under a bridge and at approx 30 M.P.H. I was armed with a document from Mercedes Benz explaining the instalation and operations of the handsfree system in my car.

One other point that i have not disclosed on here before until now is that when the Police Officer was trying to give me a ticket he said to me that i would receive 6 points for the offence if found guilty (as you all know the penalty is 3 points for this offence)
so i let the Police Officer think he was correct in what he was saying and i point blank refused to accept a ticket there and then for this alledged offence.. then when it came to statement time and when i was under caution while he was writing every word down we both said, he wrote

" i am reporting you for the offence of driving on a handheld telephone"

i replied "WHAT IS THE FIXED PENALTY FOR THAT?"

he said " 6 points"

i replied "NO IT IS NOT THE FIXED PENALTY FOR THAT OFFENCE IS 3 POINTS"

and this point he flicked his book of points and prizes and realised that i was indeed correct, he then apologised and said he had made a mistake(which obviously put me in a great situation,as i then reminded him that i was under caution and i had already signed 2 pages of statements and i insisted that he recorded this in his statement which went like this:-

" i apologise i have made a mistake and i have mis read my book"

my response " YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE ABOUT THAT AND YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE ABOUT ME BEING ON A HANDHELD TELEPHONE, I HAVE OFFERED YOU AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO INSPECT MY VEHICLE AND MY CALL REGISTER TO CONFIRM THAT I WAS NOT USING A TELEPHONE, HANDHELD OR OTHERWISE, I HAVE A PASSENGER IN THE VEHICLE WHO WILL CO OPERATE AND HE WILL EXPOSE HIS MOBILE TELEPHONE TO CLEAR THIS MATTER UP, IF THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU TO ADMIT YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE ABOUT ME USING A HANDHELD PHONE I WILL MAKE NO FURTHER COMMENT!"

There was then another series of questions for which i refused to comment.

So as i'm sure you will agree i had a strong defence and i was really looking forward to seeing my new found friend again today in court at 2pm where i could ask him some prepared questions in the court room, however at exactly 1.30 this afternoon i recieve a telephone call which went like this:-

" Mr Smith?"

"YES WHO'S CALLING?"

" Dave Summner, i'm the Legal Advisor from the Magistrates court"

"O.K?" ( at this point i'm boiling thinking he is phoning to adjourn)

" You have a hearing this afternoon at 2 p.m is that right?"

"YES"

" Well you don't to come now"

"WHY"

" They are withdrawing the case, we have read through the statements, and taken into account your plea (not guilty) and the case has been withdrawn, we have advised the Police Officer of this and you dont need to worry the matter is finished with"

"RIGHT O.K, SO THATS IT THEN, WELL THATS GOOD NEWS, BY WHY HAS IT GONE THIS FAR BEFORE IT'S THROWN OUT?"

He then went on to explain the in and outs of the Court procedure, which took about 10 minutes and i'll will spare you all the boring stuff.

Me being me, i phoned the Court back a bit later and checked the caller's credentials and clarified with another member of staff that the matter was finsihed. I have had to go to the court to sign a document and that's it NOT GUILTY!!!!!! (then again i always was!!!!)

Thanks everyone


Richard

[qooqiiu]

All that stress they put you through!

Happy for you pal

[odyssey2200]

:calp:

[WildCat]

R.E.J.S said:

The Verdict!!!!!!

First off all thanks to you all for your support!!!!!

As you all know i was summons to Court today, my hearing time was at 2pm. As i have said all along i never committed the offence of driving whilst on a mobile phone.

The main contributing factors that had in my defence was that my vehicle was factory fitted with a hands free car kit, i had a witness to back up that i was not using a handheld phone, the officer who reported me for the offence was new to the job, he, his colleague and his superior refused to look at my call register of my phone, they refused to search my car when i offered them to for them to inspect my handsfree system, the Police officers in question were traveling in the opposite direction, under a bridge and at approx 30 M.P.H. I was armed with a document from Mercedes Benz explaining the instalation and operations of the handsfree system in my car.

One other point that i have not disclosed on here before until now is that when the Police Officer was trying to give me a ticket he said to me that i would receive 6 points for the offence if found guilty (as you all know the penalty is 3 points for this offence)
so i let the Police Officer think he was correct in what he was saying and i point blank refused to accept a ticket there and then for this alledged offence.. then when it came to statement time and when i was under caution while he was writing every word down we both said, he wrote

" i am reporting you for the offence of driving on a handheld telephone"

i replied "WHAT IS THE FIXED PENALTY FOR THAT?"

he said " 6 points"

i replied "NO IT IS NOT THE FIXED PENALTY FOR THAT OFFENCE IS 3 POINTS"

and this point he flicked his book of points and prizes and realised that i was indeed correct, he then apologised and said he had made a mistake(which obviously put me in a great situation,as i then reminded him that i was under caution and i had already signed 2 pages of statements and i insisted that he recorded this in his statement which went like this:-

" i apologise i have made a mistake and i have mis read my book"

my response " YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE ABOUT THAT AND YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE ABOUT ME BEING ON A HANDHELD TELEPHONE, I HAVE OFFERED YOU AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO INSPECT MY VEHICLE AND MY CALL REGISTER TO CONFIRM THAT I WAS NOT USING A TELEPHONE, HANDHELD OR OTHERWISE, I HAVE A PASSENGER IN THE VEHICLE WHO WILL CO OPERATE AND HE WILL EXPOSE HIS MOBILE TELEPHONE TO CLEAR THIS MATTER UP, IF THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU TO ADMIT YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE ABOUT ME USING A HANDHELD PHONE I WILL MAKE NO FURTHER COMMENT!"

There was then another series of questions for which i refused to comment.

So as i'm sure you will agree i had a strong defence and i was really looking forward to seeing my new found friend again today in court at 2pm where i could ask him some prepared questions in the court room, however at exactly 1.30 this afternoon i recieve a telephone call which went like this:-

" Mr Smith?"

"YES WHO'S CALLING?"

" Dave Summner, i'm the Legal Advisor from the Magistrates court"

"O.K?" ( at this point i'm boiling thinking he is phoning to adjourn)

" You have a hearing this afternoon at 2 p.m is that right?"

"YES"

" Well you don't to come now"

"WHY"

" They are withdrawing the case, we have read through the statements, and taken into account your plea (not guilty) and the case has been withdrawn, we have advised the Police Officer of this and you dont need to worry the matter is finished with"

"RIGHT O.K, SO THATS IT THEN, WELL THATS GOOD NEWS, BY WHY HAS IT GONE THIS FAR BEFORE IT'S THROWN OUT?"

He then went on to explain the in and outs of the Court procedure, which took about 10 minutes and i'll will spare you all the boring stuff.

Me being me, i phoned the Court back a bit later and checked the caller's credentials and clarified with another member of staff that the matter was finsihed. I have had to go to the court to sign a document and that's it NOT GUILTY!!!!!! (then again i always was!!!!)

Thanks everyone


Richard

I am relieved to find you not locked up.

I also relieved to find you not guilty per posts.

I do NOT do handy held phones. My rants on this topic must now be part of the PH legends as I was rather colourful in tone und manner. I am sure you must agree that despite my claim to be a Wildy cat .. I am the roll over ./. tickle tum .. playful type

But I do have sharpest claws over stupidity

[JustinP1]

Well done.

The simple fact is that they did not go to trial as they would have lost.

Good thinking about the statement at the time. I think that should be recommended for anyone else in the same position, if you have a clear defence, ask for it to be written down verbatim at the scene.

[ukwill]

great to hear

The sad thing is the OB obviously didn't want to backdown from his position, however shaky. What a waste of time. Unfortunately, there would doubtless be those too scared/intimidated to go to court about such a matter.

[quyen]

Sorry to hear you didn't get your day in court but at least someone sensible dropped it and saved the tax payers a bit of money.

I am not a copper but, in the interest of balance, I just wanted to add that:

1. Most coppers are good and will apply common sense to these situations
2. Only a few are idiots (but that's true in every walk of life)
3. They have to deal with scrotes everyday and sometimes can't distinguish the good from the bad
4. I wouldn't do the job so I am glad someone else is

[Terzo123]

I honestly think you got lucky!

Having read through this whole topic, had the court financialy thought it worth while to proceed with the matter, the evidence of two cops saying they saw you with a moblile in your hand whilst driving, would have been enough to convict. It doesn't matter a jot about hands free kits or other mobile phones or this that and the other.

It's very much like contesting a FP for speeding or running a red light, if you fail to pay, 9 out of 10 times you will get away with it. The majority pay up, knowing full well what they did. Much like myself not so long ago. I just can't afford the risk with contesting such matters.

Court time is expensive, and you my son, have won a watch.

[SS2.]

Very well done..

Like Quinny says, you can still submit a claim for legitimate expenses - travelling, parking, printing & photocopying etc, but not for any loss of earnings, sadly - that is specifically excluded.

[JustinP1]

Terzo123 said:

I honestly think you got lucky!

Having read through this whole topic, had the court financialy thought it worth while to proceed with the matter, the evidence of two cops saying they saw you with a moblile in your hand whilst driving, would have been enough to convict. It doesn't matter a jot about hands free kits or other mobile phones or this that and the other.

Rather, than just say 'rubbish', I shall explain. Firstly, the court does not have a say - it was the CPS who decided to drop the case. It is not about finances either, as if they win, they get the guilty to pay their costs. They decided that the evidence they had was not good enough to win. Otherwise they would have proceeded.

Terzo123 said:

It's very much like contesting a FP for speeding or running a red light, if you fail to pay, 9 out of 10 times you will get away with it.

Here's a new statistic - 9 out of 10 statistics have no basis on reality and are made up on the spot.

Terzo123 said:

The majority pay up, knowing full well what they did. Much like myself not so long ago. I just can't afford the risk with contesting such matters.

I thought you said that 9 out of 10 times you 'get away with it' if you fail to pay? So why didn't you go with the 90% chance?

Terzo123 said:

Court time is expensive, and you my son, have won a watch.

Err... He is a completely innocent party who protested this from the start and had the balls not to cave in, and the police officer and CPS obviously thought he would right up until half an hour before his trial.

IMHO he deserves praise, and the way he handled the situation is a good example for anyone else forced into his position.

[The Count]

The Count said:

Hi R.E.J.S., i'm not a gambling man, but i'd wager a few quid on you achieving a favorable outcome. Good luck and please keep us posted.

Excellent news. I could feel it in my water

[Observer2]

streaky said:

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."

Thank you, but I didn't misread the point. I merely pointed out that "use" can be construed in the sense in which its prohibition is defined by reference to the definition of the device. If you had read further (and not truncated my post) you would have seen that I said the court "could" accept the common usage (sorry!) of 'using a telephone' as making (or receiving) a call. I also said that the court might not - Streaky

I think your argument stretches the definition too far. It seems to me that the language you quoted simply defines the characteristics of a hand-held (as opposed to hands-free)device (i.e. it is NECESSARY, in order for it to be used for making or receiving calls, that it should be held at some point) and does not bear at all on the what constitutes "use".

[streaky]

Observer2 said:

streaky said:

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."

Thank you, but I didn't misread the point. I merely pointed out that "use" can be construed in the sense in which its prohibition is defined by reference to the definition of the device. If you had read further (and not truncated my post) you would have seen that I said the court "could" accept the common usage (sorry!) of 'using a telephone' as making (or receiving) a call. I also said that the court might not - Streaky

I think your argument stretches the definition too far. It seems to me that the language you quoted simply defines the characteristics of a hand-held (as opposed to hands-free)device (i.e. it is NECESSARY, in order for it to be used for making or receiving calls, that it should be held at some point) and does not bear at all on the what constitutes "use".

Well, neither of our opinions was tested in court, so we're both entitled to be right. I would only point out (from court experience as an expert witness) that the courts generally accept the common usage of words and if there is dispute between the sides on this, they revert to the OED - Streaky

[Finlandia]

Well done!

Of course it should never have gone even half as far as this went.

[10 Pence Short]

Good stuff!

Goes to show that once in a while common sense prevails within the CPS.

If only they had enough resources that they could stop cases like this well before they reach court.

[p1esk]

WildCat said:

I do NOT do handy held phones. My rants on this topic must now be part of the PH legends as I was rather colourful in tone und manner.

Quite so, dear lady. I'm still grievously hurt by your fearsome attacks on my eminently reasonable behaviour.

WildCat said:

I am sure you must agree that despite my claim to be a Wildy cat .. I am the roll over ./. tickle tum .. playful type

Well that I do appreciate, but out of consideration for my dicky ticker it's best for me not to dwell on it.

Anyhow I'm glad to hear the good news from the OP, but what a fiasco to have to go through all that for no good reason.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[havoc]

10 Pence Short said:

Good stuff!

Goes to show that once in a while common sense prevails within the CPS.

If only they had enough resources that they could stop cases like this well before they reach court.

Sort-of. If common-sense prevailed they'd have scotched this either at pre-trial review or as soon as a qualified solicitor read it through and realised it was a poor case.

As is they dragged it right up to the 11th hour (read similar things a few times on here now), leaving the poor 'accused' to sweat it out and to spend a lot of (unnecessary) time preparing to defend his innocence.

It occurs to me that the CPS like to engage in gamesmanship, and leaving it until the last minute is their equivalent of 'chicken' - seeing if the defendant will break first.

[JustinP1]

havoc said:

10 Pence Short said:

Good stuff!

Goes to show that once in a while common sense prevails within the CPS.

If only they had enough resources that they could stop cases like this well before they reach court.

Sort-of. If common-sense prevailed they'd have scotched this either at pre-trial review or as soon as a qualified solicitor read it through and realised it was a poor case.

As is they dragged it right up to the 11th hour (read similar things a few times on here now), leaving the poor 'accused' to sweat it out and to spend a lot of (unnecessary) time preparing to defend his innocence.

It occurs to me that the CPS like to engage in gamesmanship, and leaving it until the last minute is their equivalent of 'chicken' - seeing if the defendant will break first.

Unfortunately, what you say is a reality. I must say though that it is no different in solicitors handling civil cases. Who has the better case is secondary to who has the bigger balls and the conviction to make a move.

However, as this is our taxpayer's money at stake and a case tried under the process of criminal law you would expect better from the CPS.