ChatterBank18 mins ago
Mobile phones whilst driving
I thought I heard on BBC Breakfast that someone can only be proscecuted for using a mobile phone whilst driving if "witnessed by two police officers". Thus even if someone is photographed whilst using a mobile phone whilst driving, this is not sufficient evidence. Is this correct? Surely if something is illegal, it must be illegal at any time, not only if witnessed by the police! Many thanks!
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by J9PUR. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well I am sure I've seen posters on here whinging that they've been ticketed for using a mobile phone on the word of one policeman - no photograph.
So maybe you heard wrong, or it related to some other type of situation
But yes if something is illegal it's illegal whether it's witnessed or not - not sure what you are trying to say there.
So maybe you heard wrong, or it related to some other type of situation
But yes if something is illegal it's illegal whether it's witnessed or not - not sure what you are trying to say there.
Whether or not its illegal shouldn't come into it, its a fact that engaging in a conversation takes away your concentration and awareness, so if you value your life, your occupents lives, and the dog, kid or other driver that you might possibly kill, then my top tip is pullover before taking a call!
I was working on a traffic census, where vehicles were stopped by a uniformed police officer in order that we could ask the drivers a few quick questions about their journey. The sole police officer on duty told a driver to pull over to the side of the road, as he'd seen him using his mobile phone while approaching the census point.
As the officer 'issued a ticket' the driver protested that he'd only been using his phone while stationary in the queue. The policeman told "I saw you using the phone while driving. I don't need any witnesses but, if you want to take it to court, I'm sure that these survey staff will back me up".
That policeman (from the Norfolk force, but working in Suffolk) clearly didn't think that he needed another officer to be present.
In fact you don't need ANY police officers to witness the offence. A camera can do the job:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...anchester/7994449.stm
Chris
As the officer 'issued a ticket' the driver protested that he'd only been using his phone while stationary in the queue. The policeman told "I saw you using the phone while driving. I don't need any witnesses but, if you want to take it to court, I'm sure that these survey staff will back me up".
That policeman (from the Norfolk force, but working in Suffolk) clearly didn't think that he needed another officer to be present.
In fact you don't need ANY police officers to witness the offence. A camera can do the job:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...anchester/7994449.stm
Chris
if you drive past this camera they will have you on film . then they can pass this information on to the police.
http://s655.photobuck...current=orwell001.jpg
http://s655.photobuck...current=orwell001.jpg
Somebody's been reading a very old book on the law of evidence or is remembering what they learned as a student, years ago! They appear to have transferred their misunderstanding.
At common law, evidence of certain facts had to be corroborated.Without corroboration the evidence of one witness was not sufficient to prove the fact deposed to
One of the facts which required corroboration was speed. That made sense in the days before accurate devices for measuring speed, for what was being given as evidence was no more than the opinion of an ordinary witness..The opinion of two witnesses was therefore required.When accurate devices were introduced the courts took little time to stretch the meaning of corroboration until we got the fiction that a policeman formed an opinion of the speed being say 45 mph (which he stated as fact) and then he himself corroborated that by reference to his speedometer which stated the same !There you are: two witnesses !
Now we dispense with such niceties.The machine states 45 mph.That's enough.No policeman is required to say that was his independent estimate of the speed and he was corroborated by the machine.
No such rule of evidence exists or existed for simple direct observation e.g of a person using a phone,.If one policeman sees it that's enough. [ I exclude special cases under common law e.g perjury which required corroboration and the rare examples under old statutes]
At common law, evidence of certain facts had to be corroborated.Without corroboration the evidence of one witness was not sufficient to prove the fact deposed to
One of the facts which required corroboration was speed. That made sense in the days before accurate devices for measuring speed, for what was being given as evidence was no more than the opinion of an ordinary witness..The opinion of two witnesses was therefore required.When accurate devices were introduced the courts took little time to stretch the meaning of corroboration until we got the fiction that a policeman formed an opinion of the speed being say 45 mph (which he stated as fact) and then he himself corroborated that by reference to his speedometer which stated the same !There you are: two witnesses !
Now we dispense with such niceties.The machine states 45 mph.That's enough.No policeman is required to say that was his independent estimate of the speed and he was corroborated by the machine.
No such rule of evidence exists or existed for simple direct observation e.g of a person using a phone,.If one policeman sees it that's enough. [ I exclude special cases under common law e.g perjury which required corroboration and the rare examples under old statutes]
-- answer removed --
About 4 years ago I was involved in an altercation with another motorist on the M8 near Edinburgh, this driver was tailgating other vehicles, undertaking and then overtaking vehicles, and I reported it to the police, I got my wife to ring 999 on my phone and I spoke on my bluetooth. The other driver said I was using a hand held phone, i.e. speaking on my mobile, and she got somebody else to say the same, I was taken to court but the mistake these people made was to try to say I was holding the phone to my right ear, (this was when I rang 999), the case was dismissed whilst I got a doctor's certificate which proved that it was impossible for me to be using a phone in my RIGHT ear as I was knocked down by a bus when I was 7 and had a fractured skull and it severed the nerve behind my ear so I am totally deaf in that ear. The witness which this woman had got, refused to attend court when I told them I was deaf in my right ear. the point I am making is that not all witnesses are reliable as the case against me was thrown out of court
ahmskunnirt, you miss the point I was making. The rule was that one officer giving evidence was not enough. It needed two witnesses.But the courts held, getting round this rule, that an officer's evidence of speed was corroborated by his speedometer.The speedometer was the second witness ! The court entertained the fiction that the officer judged the speed first,as the first witness, and was corroborated by the evidence of what the speedo said.
Common sense tells us that this ingenious preservation of a legal principle was nonsense because the officer would not do more than read his speedometer.He wouldn't judge the speed first and then get corroboration.But for years you'd still hear the officer say 'I judged his speed as in excess of the limit,some 50 mph, and this was confirmed by my speedometer' because that was the formula the police had been taught
Now, of course, we don't have that nonsense
Common sense tells us that this ingenious preservation of a legal principle was nonsense because the officer would not do more than read his speedometer.He wouldn't judge the speed first and then get corroboration.But for years you'd still hear the officer say 'I judged his speed as in excess of the limit,some 50 mph, and this was confirmed by my speedometer' because that was the formula the police had been taught
Now, of course, we don't have that nonsense
-- answer removed --
Maybe, ahmskunnirt, but old habits die hard ! You may remember that other ritual with a drunk in the street. The officer's evidence would run " He was unsteady on his feet, his speech was slurred, his eyes were glazed, he smelled of alcohol, he was drunk,sir" or some similar formula. It was never 'He was drunk' and no more.That too had its origins in 'the mists of time' and was based on a principle that the witness could not give his simple opinion that the man was drunk but had to give the evidence of facts upon which that opinion was based.[The sentencing was ritual too.'One pound or one day' for the typical vagrant]
The law of evidence is the single most important subject that any barrister learns.Quaint ain't it ? It's founded on common sense but evolves to suit changing circumstances.We may take it there once a need for a rule that a spouse could be compelled to testify against their wife or husband when that person was charged with failing to maintain a bridge which he was under personal statutory duty to do,which I seem to recall; they were certainly competent as witnesses; but which,I hope, is no longer practice !
The law of evidence is the single most important subject that any barrister learns.Quaint ain't it ? It's founded on common sense but evolves to suit changing circumstances.We may take it there once a need for a rule that a spouse could be compelled to testify against their wife or husband when that person was charged with failing to maintain a bridge which he was under personal statutory duty to do,which I seem to recall; they were certainly competent as witnesses; but which,I hope, is no longer practice !
I think you'll find that the only admissible evidence in court by a police officer can be justified by the camera, i.e. camera in a vehicle at the side of the road, a roadside speed camera, or the camera in a police "TRAFFIC" vehicle. A police constable in a vehicle on his own i.e. a police patrol car, cannot use his speedometer as evidence in court as it wouldn't be admissible
How about this chaps attempt at defending himself in court for speeding !!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLKg4DRoLo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLKg4DRoLo
1 to 20 of 20
