Police error, complaint upheld, doing me anyway! Defend?!
Discussion
Sorry, I don't often visit this forum but I'd like some help if anyone's able to offer any please.
It's not that complicated of a situation but takes a while to explain I'm afraid. I'll try to be as concise as I can but please ask if you require any more details:
I was stopped on the M60 by an unmarked car (as it happens I'd recognised what it was just before being pulled) which had followed me along Liverpool Road and on to the motorway. I got in the back of the car, was advised I was being video recorded and the officer alleged I'd been using a mobile phone. There was some dialogue between us, she checked my licence & verified it, then wrote out a ticket and explained that I was likely to be offered an awareness course, fixed penalty or I could go to court. On the ticket she'd written that I'd said "I don't understand what's going on" (which had been part of our dialogue) and asked me to sign it as acknowledgement.
I later checked the ticket and she'd completed the Ethnicity section as: "Officer defined (6+1)" as 1 and "Self defined (16+1)" as W1. I was never asked my ethnicity so she clearly made it up (and got it wrong). I made a complaint via the GMP website, which was initially acknowledged but I had to chase up a week later, it was then looked into by an Inspector, the officer admitted it and has been reprimanded.
I requested the in-car recording, it was obtained and I went along to the police station. It turns out there was a fault with the car (for which it's now in their workshops) and it was only recording audio internally. The recording they have is of the rear of my car on the motorway hard shoulder (it was only started recording just before I got in the police car, despite it being normal procedure for it to be always recording whilst they're on patrol - apparently the officer's been told off for that too) with the audio of the officer and myself inside the police car, none of which is particularly exciting except it proves I wasn't asked my ethnicity. It's actually my suspicion that this officer and many others likely routinely complete this box on their forms without actually asking the alleged offender, but I understand that's just me speculating.
The official complaint response I got states "the officer had failed to ask you your ‘self defined’ ethnicity, furthermore the officer went on to record if for you without your consent" but goes on to state that the fact the officer didn't deal with things correctly is not a barrier to prosecution (I'd asked if it was).
So, my question is what's the likely chance of success defending myself in court against an officer's sworn statement when they're proven that they don't follow procedures correctly and make things up, or alternatively what's the chances of the CPS dropping the prosecution for the same reason (likely after an initial court hearing I'm told)?
It's not that complicated of a situation but takes a while to explain I'm afraid. I'll try to be as concise as I can but please ask if you require any more details:
I was stopped on the M60 by an unmarked car (as it happens I'd recognised what it was just before being pulled) which had followed me along Liverpool Road and on to the motorway. I got in the back of the car, was advised I was being video recorded and the officer alleged I'd been using a mobile phone. There was some dialogue between us, she checked my licence & verified it, then wrote out a ticket and explained that I was likely to be offered an awareness course, fixed penalty or I could go to court. On the ticket she'd written that I'd said "I don't understand what's going on" (which had been part of our dialogue) and asked me to sign it as acknowledgement.
I later checked the ticket and she'd completed the Ethnicity section as: "Officer defined (6+1)" as 1 and "Self defined (16+1)" as W1. I was never asked my ethnicity so she clearly made it up (and got it wrong). I made a complaint via the GMP website, which was initially acknowledged but I had to chase up a week later, it was then looked into by an Inspector, the officer admitted it and has been reprimanded.
I requested the in-car recording, it was obtained and I went along to the police station. It turns out there was a fault with the car (for which it's now in their workshops) and it was only recording audio internally. The recording they have is of the rear of my car on the motorway hard shoulder (it was only started recording just before I got in the police car, despite it being normal procedure for it to be always recording whilst they're on patrol - apparently the officer's been told off for that too) with the audio of the officer and myself inside the police car, none of which is particularly exciting except it proves I wasn't asked my ethnicity. It's actually my suspicion that this officer and many others likely routinely complete this box on their forms without actually asking the alleged offender, but I understand that's just me speculating.
The official complaint response I got states "the officer had failed to ask you your ‘self defined’ ethnicity, furthermore the officer went on to record if for you without your consent" but goes on to state that the fact the officer didn't deal with things correctly is not a barrier to prosecution (I'd asked if it was).
So, my question is what's the likely chance of success defending myself in court against an officer's sworn statement when they're proven that they don't follow procedures correctly and make things up, or alternatively what's the chances of the CPS dropping the prosecution for the same reason (likely after an initial court hearing I'm told)?
Apparently whether you're on the phone or not doesn't matter in the slightest - if you have it in your hand, you're guilty of the offence (even if, for example, you're moving it from your shirt pocket to the centre console in order that it doesn't distract you whilst driving). Seems ridiculous to me, but that's the law.
Zingari said:
What are you being prosecuted for - speeding or using a mobile phone whilst driving? If the latter you should have had an endorsable fixed penalty notice end of. If speeding option of awareness training within a certain speed theshold for a price but no points!
Thanks for your response. Speed was not an issue - they now do "driver retraining courses" for things besides speeding. The alleged offence is "using a hand held mobile phone whist driving" contrary to R110(1) RV(Con & Use) Regs 86 S41D RTA & Sch 2 ROTA.carreauchompeur said:
...I often didn't ask people their ethnicity during stops as I felt it an intrusive question which I felt uncomfortable asking. As a personal addition I feel it actually flys in the face of helping multiculturalism.
Whilst I can sympathise with your opinion the fact remains, it's on the form and should always be completed after asking for the answer. The fact that you felt uncomfortable doing so doesn't allow you to make it up. This officer made it up and now has a permanent record about it on her service record. If the data being analysed is false then that really does fly in the face of helping multiculturalism - could it even be that the police are deliberately trying to manipulate the figures?
carreauchompeur said:
To me, multiculturalism is all about breaking down barriers. Everyone's equal.
The monitoring form says to a subject "Here, put yourself in a box". Hence, I don't like it. And I don't like answering the question.
It's much like diversity monitoring when they ask you to define your sexuality. I don't think it's as straightforward as X, Y or Z, so I don't really like the question.
Self-defined ethnicity's a component, definitely, however in terms of blunt monitoring this could be just as easily achieved with the "officer defined ethnicity" box. Blunter, yes, but achieves the same aim of monitoring whether we're stopping a disproportionate number of BME people.
Are you white, and were you on the phone?
Are you aware there's a category for "decline to answer" that anyone can choose?The monitoring form says to a subject "Here, put yourself in a box". Hence, I don't like it. And I don't like answering the question.
It's much like diversity monitoring when they ask you to define your sexuality. I don't think it's as straightforward as X, Y or Z, so I don't really like the question.
Self-defined ethnicity's a component, definitely, however in terms of blunt monitoring this could be just as easily achieved with the "officer defined ethnicity" box. Blunter, yes, but achieves the same aim of monitoring whether we're stopping a disproportionate number of BME people.
Are you white, and were you on the phone?
Pontoneer said:
No , that is not the law .
It is not unlawful in itself to hold the handset whilst driving ; it is only unlawful to hold the handset in order to use it .
The two are not the same and moving it from one place to another is not in itself unlawful .
That's quite different to what the Constable and Inspector told me (separately), the phrase they used was "the offence is absolute, if someone has a phone in their hand, they're guilty of the offence".It is not unlawful in itself to hold the handset whilst driving ; it is only unlawful to hold the handset in order to use it .
The two are not the same and moving it from one place to another is not in itself unlawful .
Everyone seems to have missed the point. They don't care that I wasn't in the process of making or receiving a phone call.
I am amazed that everyone thinks it's OK for the police to decide for themselves whether they follow procedures or ignore them, and then go one further and deliberately make up false responses.
I am amazed that everyone thinks it's OK for the police to decide for themselves whether they follow procedures or ignore them, and then go one further and deliberately make up false responses.
NoNeed said:
It doesn't matter if the OP was on the phone as the question asked was basically could the officers testimony stand up in court now it has been shown to be false.
I hate people that use the phone while driving but it comes a close second to police officers that claim that holding an object is actually using it. My phone has rand several time while I'm at the wheel and I have got it out to pass to the wife to answer. The police would say I was using when clearly I'm not.
Thanks for your constructive input and actually understanding my original query. If anyone can help answer this I'd be grateful.I hate people that use the phone while driving but it comes a close second to police officers that claim that holding an object is actually using it. My phone has rand several time while I'm at the wheel and I have got it out to pass to the wife to answer. The police would say I was using when clearly I'm not.
Steffan said:
I must agree with Breadvan here. The inference from the lack of clarity by the OP could reasonably be that he has no means of justifying his position. If he can the surely it is reasonable for him to do so. If he was holding the phone in the car whilst driving, then I do think he has committed an offence. Esoteric reasons as to why this is not a reasonable deduction may provide amusement and banter but I cannot see a workable defence in such froth. Was he using the phone whilst driving? From all that I have read on here I would think he was.
I didn't say one way or the other, I just provided the info that could be used by the prosecution at court so it's been interesting reading the different assumptions (I deliberately kept quiet to see how things went).Here's some useful things that you may wish to consider:
1) I do sometimes take a phone in a car with me, but not always
2) I do use a model-specific cradle to hold the phone when I take it in a car
3) I do have a pair of walkie-talkies that I sometimes use when travelling with colleagues in convoy
4) I have various bluetooth devices (headsets, sunvisor-type devices) that I use when I take a phone into a car
5) the officer was in a 3 series, I was in a 4x4 (i.e. higher up) which will have made it more difficult for her to see
6) she didn't ever ask me what equipment I was using, nor did she check in the car
7) the car wasn't taxed (but was being driven legally) - maybe she was annoyed that having stopped me and couldn't do me for that she made up something else instead (she has a proven record of making things up, as per the upheld complaint)?
I'm unlikely to be able to respond further as I'm out tonight and out all day tomorrow (instructing people on how to drive), but I will check back when I can.
I thought I'd better update this thread promptly, being as the matter was dealt with yesterday, in court in Manchester. However, I don't have time to go in to all the detail just now, so I'll try to keep it concise.
I received a Summons in January for both the use of a phone offence and a secondary offence of driving whilst not in proper control of a vehicle. The officer claimed it was an oversight that she hadn't ever asked my ethnicity and that she only realised she hadn’t when the CCTV was played by the Inspector investigating my complaint (last August). She stated in her written statement of 21st December, and then in her live evidence to the court that she'd made the allegation of not being in proper control at the time of the stop. She hadn't done so at all. It’s my suspicion that maybe someone (i.e. a PHer who works in GMP) pointed her towards this thread and she thought it’d be a good idea to add that charge just to be on the safe side.
Thankfully, we were able to get a copy of the in car CCTV footage from the CPS yesterday morning and this was played to the magistrates. This proved that everything I'd said was correct and also that the officer had never mentioned this second offence. So not only had she lied on the ticket, there was unequivocal evidence that she’d also done so in her written statement and in court.
The trial took pretty much all day and the magistrates deliberated for a rather long time but eventually found me not guilty on both charges.
I was represented by Rob Kellock of Kellock’s – rob.kellock on Pistonheads www.kellocksonline.co.uk, who did a great job. I had considered representing myself but I’m glad I didn’t try to as there were a few pertinent legal issues raised and with a particularly feisty prosecutor I’d have probably have been stumped with a lot of what went on.
I received a Summons in January for both the use of a phone offence and a secondary offence of driving whilst not in proper control of a vehicle. The officer claimed it was an oversight that she hadn't ever asked my ethnicity and that she only realised she hadn’t when the CCTV was played by the Inspector investigating my complaint (last August). She stated in her written statement of 21st December, and then in her live evidence to the court that she'd made the allegation of not being in proper control at the time of the stop. She hadn't done so at all. It’s my suspicion that maybe someone (i.e. a PHer who works in GMP) pointed her towards this thread and she thought it’d be a good idea to add that charge just to be on the safe side.
Thankfully, we were able to get a copy of the in car CCTV footage from the CPS yesterday morning and this was played to the magistrates. This proved that everything I'd said was correct and also that the officer had never mentioned this second offence. So not only had she lied on the ticket, there was unequivocal evidence that she’d also done so in her written statement and in court.
The trial took pretty much all day and the magistrates deliberated for a rather long time but eventually found me not guilty on both charges.
I was represented by Rob Kellock of Kellock’s – rob.kellock on Pistonheads www.kellocksonline.co.uk, who did a great job. I had considered representing myself but I’m glad I didn’t try to as there were a few pertinent legal issues raised and with a particularly feisty prosecutor I’d have probably have been stumped with a lot of what went on.
I should have said, costs were awarded without hesitation by the magistrates.
I think I'm right in saying Kellock's fees (at the lower/legalaid rate that the court will allow) will probably be under 4 figures (plus VAT), but possibly not. Had I been found guilty I'd have had to meet them, along with the prosecution costs and whatever fine and points.
I think I'm right in saying Kellock's fees (at the lower/legalaid rate that the court will allow) will probably be under 4 figures (plus VAT), but possibly not. Had I been found guilty I'd have had to meet them, along with the prosecution costs and whatever fine and points.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff