Best ever mobile-phone story

[streaky]

"How can the same st happen ..."

My sister just called me. She had been a passenger in a car driven by her husband which was stopped by a police officer who accused my BiL of using a mobile-phone whilst he was driving. The following is a summary of her story.

The officer was writing out the FPN as he approached and simply stated that he was reporting my BiL for the offence.

When my sister repeatedly tried to explain that my BiL couldn't been using the 'phone she was brusquely told to shut up or risk being booked for obstrction! [Despite this being some 200 miles away, the attitude of the officer appears depressingly similar to that of the one who stopped the car I was a passenger in (thread on here).] When he denied using a 'phone and tried to explain, my BiL was told not to argue, as the officer had clearly seen him on the 'phone.

He got a lecture on the dangers of driving whilst on the 'phone and the FPN thrust at him. Neither he nor my sister have any idea why the officer thought he was using a mobile-phone ... he wasn't.

---

He's now looking forward to his day in court ... if it gets that far.

The give-away will be if he requests a Palantype for the hearing.

You see, my BiL is profoundly deaf!

If the officer had not cut my sister's explanation short and had listened to my BiL, he wouldn't have made a (future) fool of himself. My BiL is so insensed by the obduracy of the officer that he is determined to expose him in court. He's an accomplished lipreader and as he lost his hearing in his 20s (in a PIRA bomb explosion in NI), his speech contains no clues to his deafness. He's also a lawyer.

It sounds like it might be worth driving up there to watch. And to those who will argue that it's a waste of the Court's time and of public money (a point that I did put to my BiL), his view was that 'justice' has to be seen to be done (although I think that 'retribution' might be nearer the mark).

Streaky

PS - I did think of saying that my BiL had a trump card to play ...

Edited by streaky on Tuesday 31st August 16:54

[streaky]

Red Devil said:

Aaargghh - the key part of the story is missing!
What was your BiL doing to make Bib think he was using a mobile? Rubbing his neck? Scratching his ear?

PH - clarity matters.

streaky said:

Neither he nor my sister have any idea why the officer thought he was using a mobile-phone ... he wasn't.

PintOfKittens said:

Davi said:

if only this could be videoed!!! Superb, though I'm sure the officer will be proven correct by some miraculous means.

I have a feeling this will happen too. The officer might state that he was just holding a phone, which is still an offence

He doesn't have a mobile-phone and my sister didn't have hers.

Strangely Brown said:

Deva Link said:

streaky said:

And to those who will argue that it's a waste of the Court's time and of public money (a point that I did put to my BiL), his view was that 'justice' has to be seen to be done..

It'll get dropped on the day, therefore completely wasting everybody's time and proving nothing.

Is Streaky's BiL required to disclose his defence, i.e. deafness, before the hearing? If so, then I can that it would be dropped. If not, then surely it has to be worth playing out the hand.

His defence will not be that he is deaf, it will be that he didn't have a 'phone in his hand, or indeed, in the car. He doesn't have to disclose in advance the reason why he didn't have a mobile-phone.

I can visualise the scene in the Magistrates Court:

Officer: I observed the accused holding a mobile telephone to his ear whilst proceeding along the High Street in a Northerly direction.

BiL: Why do you think I would be holding a mobile telephone to my ear?

Officer: Well, to carry out a conversation on it.

BiL: I see. And, Officer, do you recall what I was saying to you as you issued me with the FPN? [Turns away from witness.]

Officer: Not exactly, Sir, but my impression was that you were trying to excuse your use of the 'phone.

BiL: I'm sorry, officer, could you speak up, you see, as you would have heard had you been listening, ... I'm deaf, so holding a mobile-phone to my ear would have been pointless ... don't you think?


I'll post updates as received from my sister/BiL.

Streaky

[streaky]

vonhosen said:

I've already said to someone else earlier it could have been avoided at the scene.

It might have been, if the officer had used at least one of his working ears, rather than just his mouth.

vonhosen said:

If I'm not adding anything worthwhile to this thread, then I'll say no more on this one.

Which is a shame as you have provided several insights into the thought processes, and there is an outstanding question you haven't answered (see below).

Terzo123 said:

I believe FPN's have been issued for drivers texting or reading texts at the wheel of a car.

Terzo123 said:

How would the officer be lying, if he believes he saw the OP's Bil texting whilst driving?

Johnnytheboy said:

Sorry, did I miss this: did the plod specify talking on a phone or merely using a phone?

vonhosen said:

The officer's version will already be a matter of record that has been submitted.

Apparently, the FPN states "using" - which is the wording in the Regulation. According to my sister, the officer did say something along the lines of, "I saw you talking ..." It will be interesting to learn whether he wrote "using", "talking" , or even "texting" in his notebook. As my BiL was stopped in a 50 limit, the officer might have gone for a more serious charge had he thought my BiL was 'texting'.

sunbeam_alpine said:

Von, I have read that you will not add to this thread, but I still have a question (which maybe you - or someone else could answer).

You state that the OP's BIL is not taking the easiest route to getting it resolved (i.e. he is letting it go to court).

Given that (according to the OP) the officer refused to listen to either the BIL or his passenger, and issued the FPN, what options are left open to him other than letting it go to court?

EU_Foreigner said:

Yes - same question here. I thought you could only avoid court if you pleaded guilty and accepted the FPN and if you don't plead guilty, your only option is court?

It's a shame that VH didn't answer this before he left this thread. It is my BiL's opinion that, as he rejects the FPN, he has no option but Court.

Terzo123 said:

Anyhow, i don't think i would want to be a close friend of Streaky's at the moment, they all seem to be having a bad run of luck when it comes to being wrongly given FPN's for driving whilst on the phone

I did start with the Bruce Willis quote. Anyway, my BiL isn't a close friend ... he lives 200 miles away.

My BiL's diagnosis is profound (100%), bilateral, post-lingual, sensorineural hearing loss by reason of severe trauma. I'd forgotten - and it seems so must he - that he carries a card (;)) explaining this.

Streaky

Edited by streaky on Sunday 18th July 09:12

[streaky]

Johnnytheboy said:

I'm glad it's not just me that struggles with the PH quote system.

No 'struggle' with the quote system, just the accidental deletion of a ']' when editing the cut-n-paste compilation - Streaky

[streaky]

simonrockman said:

I would expect the police to ask the mobile phone network for records (I assume the BiL has a phone for email/text/BBIM)

and I wouldn't have posted this on the internet until after the case, indeed I'd ask the BiL if the thread should be deleted.

Simon

You still have to prove a negative the argument has been repeatedly advanced that the accused could have had another 'phone. My 'phones are on monthly contracts, but I understand that PAYG users don't get a statement of use.

I don't know why you wouldn't have posted the story, these Fora would be a dry ditch without such reports. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to your thinking. Being the sort of person I am (which you don't know), I very naturally asked whether I could post the story.

Streaky

[streaky]

simonrockman said:

I wouldn't have posted because I think it will find its way back to the officer in question and the case will be quietly dropped.

Phone records will support your Brother In Law's case.

Simon

No 'phone = no records ... as I said, prove a negative - Streaky

[streaky]

marshalla said:

jaf01uk said:

And even better - as stated by the OP a number of times The OP's bil does not own a mobile phone!!

[devil's advocate]
Since when has one had to own a phone to use it ? PAYG phones bought with cash and topped up with cash are pretty much unattributable too, btw.
[/devil's advocate]

(Not that I agree with the position of the office who should be heading for a fall, but the arguments which can be produced are not as simple as some people seem to think)

Sheesh! How many times do some of us have to repeat this?

I 'spoke' to my BiL by IM yesterday, he's now not entirely convinced that'll he'll be acquitted as he has only his deafness to rely on to support the truth.

We discussed speaking to a senior officer at his local nick (which is not in the area he was stopped). His concern with that lies in a previous discussion on here that the officer might have written 'using' rather than 'speaking' (likely, IMHO) and, if challenged with the deafness 'defence' might change his story to avoid his being embarrassed - "I heard the accused say he was deaf, but he wasn't using the device to make a telephone call but to send/read a text message." Without detailed, forensic examination of a mobile-phone it is impossible to gainsay that ... and even then might not be possible. Not that he has a 'phone to examine ... but his wife has (although it was not in the car at the time) and there are text messages on that.

It's a ridiculous situation, but symptomatic of the sort of loose law-making Nu Labia indulged in and another effective reversal of the burden of proof.

As I've said, my BiL is most annoyed at the officer's obduracy.

Sadly, it would seem that Court is the more certain way to be cleared of the charges.

Streaky

Edited by streaky on Monday 19th July 13:27

[streaky]

odyssey2200 said:

Marf said:

odyssey2200 said:

Was the defendantholding the phone to his ear to keep him bad ears warm.

IIRC a truck driver got off with that one.

How do you warm your ear with a mobile phone if you don't own one

I have not seen that not owning a mobile phone is an effective defence in law.

I have seen that keeping your bad ear warm is.

Once again ... there was no 'phone in the car - so this is not a usable defence - Streaky

[streaky]

odyssey2200 said:

Streaky

Does the prosecution have to isclose its evidence before a trial?

If so your solicitor would know if the BiB recorded "using" and could perhaps seek clarification before the trial?

If the case opens with the prosecution making its case.

"The accused was seen using a phone"

Could your Solicitor not then ask for specifics?

" What did you observe Officer?"

"I saw him driving with the phone held to his ear, m;lud"

"Did you know that the accused is totally Deaf, Officer?"

"umm, No"

" No, because you are a complete fkwitt, bully who wouldn't listen to the accused at the roadside!"



Works for me!!

As I posted previously. And for completeness, my BiL is not a practicing criminal solicitor, he is a corporate lawyer ... but he intends to defend himself - Streaky

[streaky]

sonarbell said:

Using a phone to make a call means holding it to your ear.

No it doesn't, a conversation can be held on loudspeaker ... with the 'phone held in the hand - Streaky

[streaky]

sonarbell said:

streaky said:

sonarbell said:

Using a phone to make a call means holding it to your ear.

No it doesn't, a conversation can be held on loudspeaker ... with the 'phone held in the hand - Streaky

So if the phone was in his lap whilst making the call and it was on speaker phone then he wouldnt have heard it anyway.. He is deaf remember ?

I took your question as hypothetical and applying to a hearing user - Streaky

[streaky]

Rest assured, I will post any and all developments. It might be a while though before a summons drops on the mat - Streaky

[streaky]

sonarbell said:

It has been implied over the last few comments that reporting the irregularities of this case to the desk sergeant might allow the officer to change his view or comments or opinion..

As I remember it the Officer has to write up his pocket book with a thorough record as soon as practicable after the alleged offence. In which case he cant change what he has written. Making it written in stone so to speak..

As I have remarked previously, it might hinge on what verb the officer used in his notebook. If he wrote "talking" then he has less wriggle-room than if he wrote 'using' - Streaky

[streaky]

My BiL was at a charity dinner last week. He recounted the tale of his stop to those at his table.

After the meal, a gentleman who had been sitting at an adjacent table 'had a word' with him. He was a senior officer in the force involved and was very interested in the story. He promised to look into it and revert.

I'll keep you posted.

Streaky

[streaky]

Digger said:

Haven't read all the way up Streaky but did a summons drop through your bil's letterbox?

Not yet ... but up to six months from offence to lay before a Magistrate - Streaky

[streaky]

I've just had a call from my sister. A letter arrived for my BiL this morning from the police force that stopped him.

A Superintendent has witten: "at the instruction of the Chief Constable" to apologise on behalf of the force for the: "inappropriate manner with which the officer dealt with the matter". The FPN has been withdrawn.

Apparently, the officer will receive "counselling" [Why "counselling"? Is he upset?] in dealing with the disabled.

The letter goes on to suggest that my BiL displays a RNID car sticker, "to avoid any similar unpleasantness in the future". [This might be fair advice, but it's damned cheeky nonetheless.]

But the cruncher comes with a paragraph reminding my BiL that the use of mobile telephone in motor vehicles is against the law, and [wait for it!] advice that should he be stopped "again" [!] for using a mobile telephone he will be prosecuted! [WTF?!]

The letter does not in any way address the erroneousness of the allegation made by the officer.

Apparently my BiL's desk is now missing a bite-sized chunk and the keyboard of his PC is melting as he composes a reply.

There may be more to come.

Streaky

PS - the officer (or his typist ... but didn't he check before he signed it?) spelled my BiL's family name incorrectly - S

[streaky]

^^^^^

Not sure what you mean by that?

Streaky