Seizure of mobile phone as evidence of offence
Discussion
rich 36 said:
In the same way an accident investigation
prove the owner was texting/speaking on it
at the time of accident
if thats what you meant
prove the owner was texting/speaking on it
at the time of accident
if thats what you meant
Couldn't they do that through logs without having the phone, because the dates/time on the phone would be dictated by the user settings surely?
Only going on what I've surmised from police procedures following court cases
The one in particular I'm thinking
Guy in Kent, delivering Gas bottles all over the place,
text to GF;
'Thats Six deliveries done
only Three more to go'
the instant before he left carriageway ploughed down lay-by killing a few people innocently admiring landscape,
If a handset is seized or not, would be a moot point I'd imagine
as your records are held somewhere anyway for inspection
The one in particular I'm thinking
Guy in Kent, delivering Gas bottles all over the place,
text to GF;
'Thats Six deliveries done
only Three more to go'
the instant before he left carriageway ploughed down lay-by killing a few people innocently admiring landscape,
If a handset is seized or not, would be a moot point I'd imagine
as your records are held somewhere anyway for inspection
Edited by rich 36 on Saturday 24th February 19:48
Mattt said:
rich 36 said:
In the same way an accident investigation
prove the owner was texting/speaking on it
at the time of accident
if thats what you meant
prove the owner was texting/speaking on it
at the time of accident
if thats what you meant
Couldn't they do that through logs without having the phone, because the dates/time on the phone would be dictated by the user settings surely?
Only using logs would not prove that the phone was being used specifically by the accused person.
rich 36 said:
No,
but a combination of officer seeing driver of car on his phone at 3PM
stopping/seizing and correlating this info with provider
would be pretty clear cut
surely....
but a combination of officer seeing driver of car on his phone at 3PM
stopping/seizing and correlating this info with provider
would be pretty clear cut
surely....
Oh yes (unless quick exchange of phones with passenger).
Was just referring to whether logs alone, without physical phone taken at time of pull, would be sufficient.
rich 36 said:
not sure you actually advocating the phone is wrenched from you cold guilty hands
mid conversation as a way of proving its actually YOU on the phone
how often do you hand your phone to anyone else anyway?
mid conversation as a way of proving its actually YOU on the phone
how often do you hand your phone to anyone else anyway?
Sorry, but you've lost me.
All I was saying is that the same standards of proof that are required for other CPS actions should be required for accusations of traffic offences.
If so, the mere fact that a person was photographed holding something next to his or her ear does not prove that the something was a phone and that the something was being used for "interactive communications", which is, I believe, what is banned.
I think there's a stated case about this, which is basically along the lines of the Human Rights angle. ie it's not proportionate to seize a phone to prove a "minor" traffic" offence.
For more serious offences, such a seizure may be in order.
I'll try and remember to dig out the case law when I'm back in the office tomorrow.
For more serious offences, such a seizure may be in order.
I'll try and remember to dig out the case law when I'm back in the office tomorrow.
Dibble said:
I think there's a stated case about this, which is basically along the lines of the Human Rights angle. ie it's not proportionate to seize a phone to prove a "minor" traffic" offence.
For more serious offences, such a seizure may be in order.
I'll try and remember to dig out the case law when I'm back in the office tomorrow.
For more serious offences, such a seizure may be in order.
I'll try and remember to dig out the case law when I'm back in the office tomorrow.
It is about reasonableness & proportionality.
Two often quoted cases in regard to seizure of property (not specifically phones but in general) are "Ghani & others v Jones (1969)" & "Chic fashions (West Wales) Ltd v Jones (1968)"
As has been said before, the phone itself proves nothing so shouldn't be seized as evidence to prove the offence. Phone logs are all that is needed and some evidene of person using it at the time, presume police saw them using it etc.
i.e they dont seize your car to prove that you were driving it at the time.. same probative value..
i.e they dont seize your car to prove that you were driving it at the time.. same probative value..
Edited by greysquirrel on Sunday 25th February 22:36
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff