Garda wrongly alleged mobile phone offence

gemini_girl

My husband just came in to say he was pulled over by a garda & given 2 penalty points & a 60 euro fine for using his phone while driving, however my husband is innocent. He was in a line of cars about 8 away from the garda behind a set of traffic lights. The only thing he done in that time was take a drink of water, his phone was put away not even in sight. Garda refused to believe him & gave out to him saying he couldve caused carnage & that he was lying. My husband drives for a living & needs a clean licence (even though he is out of work now but his area is truck driving) plus we have barely 50 euro a week to spend on food for a family of 4 as money is so tight for us so no way can we spend 60 on a fine. Husband says no point in going to court because no one will believe him over the garda. Any advice please?

Jonny Drama

Sounds very frustrating! Does he know where the Garda in question is stationed? He could go down and meet with him in private and explain the situation to him. Or if that doesn't work he should write a formal letter to the Garda's Sergeant explaining everything and see if that helps.

My brother was done a few years ago by a Guard for doing nothing, the Guard wouldn't listen to him at all so he wrote a letter to the Sergeant explaining the situation and he was cleared of the offence.

Now just because it worked for him doesn't mean it will work for your husband, but no harm trying.. Best of luck with it.

bazz26

Without appealing it in court I personally cannot see any other way forward.

Damien360

Very strange by the garda.

I got pulled going through Tulsk by an unmarked car for driving while using a phone. I was not and explained to female Garda who eventually believed me. I showed her my car kit and that the phone was connected to it with speaker and mic of no use whatsover when connected. That did'nt cut it.

She then asked me to open the calls register on the phone (it is a blackberry and she could'nt do it...fair enough) and thankfully I had no calls in or out in the last hour and that settled it. I drove away happy.

I am sure the gardai hear all kinds of crap excuses all day long. I would hazard a guess that you need to convince them there and then, partcularily after the recent speeding points let off for a judge. Their superiors will be watching like hawks for anyone bending the rules.

Lawless2k12

I'd say get the time and date that he was stopped which I assume is on the ticket, get a list of the calls made from your husbands phone for that day and just hope he hadn't made a call within 20 or 30 minutes (Just to be on the safe side) of when he was ticketed. If he presents that to the guard in question it should be okay. If the guard refuses then take him to court. Half the guards now days wont show up for cases like this because they know they have less evidence of a call being made than the suspected offender does of not making the call. Without a list of calls and times it's just your word against a guard and the judge is obviously going to side with the guard in that situation... just my two cents...

slimjimmc

Lawless2k12 wrote: »

I'd say get the time and date that he was stopped which I assume is on the ticket, get a list of the calls made from your husbands phone for that day and just hope he hadn't made a call within 20 or 30 minutes (Just to be on the safe side) of when he was ticketed. If he presents that to the guard in question it should be okay. If the guard refuses then take him to court. Half the guards now days wont show up for cases like this because they know they have less evidence of a call being made than the suspected offender does of not making the call. Without a list of calls and times it's just your word against a guard and the judge is obviously going to side with the guard in that situation... just my two cents...

Since the offence one of holding a mobile phone while driving (which includes being stopped in traffic) it's highly likely that's the only thing the Garda will be alleging.
The Garda is an eye witness so as you say, his evidence will carry more weight and hard to disprove. While the call history proves the phone wasn't used for calls or texts it doesn't really prove the phone was not held by the driver. However if the Garda does claim he saw him talking on it then it could discredit the Garda's evidence.

Wils110

If the ticket says using the phone and he wasn't its an easy appeal using phone records an all that if he received a message guilty

If the ticket says holding a mobile good luck

slimjimmc

Wils110 wrote: »

If the ticket says using the phone and he wasn't its an easy appeal using phone records an all that if he received a message guilty

If the ticket says holding a mobile good luck

AFAIK the penalty notice will probably just say it's alleged he committed an offence at date/time/place contrary to section blah blah blah of the road traffic act blah blah blah. I don't think it would contain any statement of how the offence was committed i.e. whether he was holding it or using it. The ticket would be for holding a phone.

PrettyBoy

Couple of years ago a motorbike guard stopped me for "going through a red light" when taking a right turn. There was no filter light and there was a line of traffic coming towards me so my only opportunity to turn was when the light went red.

The guard stopped me, asked for my licence and immediately told me he was giving me two penalty points. I was totally confused. I explained to him what had just happened and questioned what I had done wrong. He wouldn't even listen, he said something to the effect of "you ran a red light, you're getting the points, simple as".

I knew I was dealing with a prick at this stage, I told him then to give me his name and badge number. He questioned why, I told him I was going to appeal and again requested his name and badge number. He immediately changed his tune and asked me to explain what happened again, he must have listened to me that time because he apologized, gave me back my licence and apologized again before getting back on his bike.

If your husband is in fact innocent then why should he have to take the points and pay a fine? He did nothing wrong. There are some seriously ignorant guards that think they can get away with anything and tell you no one will believe your word over theirs. Total bollocks. He should appeal.

Wils110

You can't be fined for allegedly doing something has to be proven and you can appeal if you feel unjust

jimmycrackcorm

I would chance appealing via the court route especially when the Garda was so far behind that there would be an opportunity to throw doubt on the case. Can't see a judge making it worse given the circumstances

Voodoomelon

PrettyBoy wrote: »

Couple of years ago a motorbike guard stopped me for "going through a red light" when taking a right turn. There was no filter light and there was a line of traffic coming towards me so my only opportunity to turn was when the light went red.

The guard stopped me, asked for my licence and immediately told me he was giving me two penalty points. I was totally confused. I explained to him what had just happened and questioned what I had done wrong. He wouldn't even listen, he said something to the effect of "you ran a red light, you're getting the points, simple as".

I knew I was dealing with a prick at this stage, I told him then to give me his name and badge number. He questioned why, I told him I was going to appeal and again requested his name and badge number. He immediately changed his tune and asked me to explain what happened again, he must have listened to me that time because he apologized, gave me back my licence and apologized again before getting back on his bike.

If your husband is in fact innocent then why should he have to take the points and pay a fine? He did nothing wrong. There are some seriously ignorant guards that think they can get away with anything and tell you no one will believe your word over theirs. Total bollocks. He should appeal.

It happens us all, getting stuck in a crappy traffic situation like that. But you broke a red light and he was entitled to give you points, you were lucky.

Wexfordian

Voodoomelon wrote: »

It happens us all, getting stuck in a crappy traffic situation like that. But you broke a red light and he was entitled to give you points, you were lucky.

He may have been waiting to turn in the junction though, in which case he could (in fact would have to) complete the move. If he wasn't I can't see why the Garda would have backed down.

challengemaster

Voodoomelon wrote: »

It happens us all, getting stuck in a crappy traffic situation like that. But you broke a red light and he was entitled to give you points, you were lucky.

That one's a bit of a grey area I think. If you've moved into the junction in preparation to take the turn, then you're entitled to do so even after the light turns red AFAIK, so it's not really running a red light. Not doing so in the driving test will get you at the least a grade 2.

Voodoomelon

If sitting in the junction then i'd agree, points would be harsh. But moving off from the line and not waiting for a green is flatly breaking a red, he doesn't say which.

Henry Ford III

All you have to do is produce his phone records. Sorted.

ResearchWill

Henry Ford III wrote: »

All you have to do is produce his phone records. Sorted.

Road traffic act 2006


3.— (1) A person shall not while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place hold a mobile phone.

“ hold ”, in relation to a mobile phone, means holding the phone by hand or supporting or cradling it with another part of the body;

How does phone records prove you in fact did not hold a mobile phone.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0023/sec0003.html#sec3

nutts_77

The hubby could always just own up to making a boo boo, getting caught, and then just take his medicine....

PrettyBoy

Voodoomelon wrote: »

But you broke a red light and he was entitled to give you points, you were lucky.

What? It's the normal procedure when you come to that particular junction. If I was in the wrong I wouldn't have said a word but I was right and there was no way I was taking the points. The guard backed down immediately, nothing to do with luck or him letting me away with it.

A lot of people here just assume that the guards are never in the wrong in these situations and, like the guard I dealt with, they're never interested in hearing the other persons side of the story. It's a pathetic attitude to have.

PrettyBoy

nutts_77 wrote: »

The hubby could always just own up to making a boo boo, getting caught, and then just take his medicine....

:rolleyes:

PrettyBoy wrote: »

A lot of people here just assume that the guards are never in the wrong in these situations and, like the guard I dealt with, they're never interested in hearing the other persons side of the story. It's a pathetic attitude to have.

Our man in Havana

Wils110 wrote: »

You can't be fined for allegedly doing something has to be proven and you can appeal if you feel unjust

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I would chance appealing via the court route especially when the Garda was so far behind that there would be an opportunity to throw doubt on the case. Can't see a judge making it worse given the circumstances

By all means go to court but the way the courts are set up will not make it an easy task to beat city hall.

At the end of the day you have to consider your chances of winning against the outcome if you lose.

Your call.

BTW you don't have any penalty points yet. Gardaí only have the power to make a complaint that can be dealt with via a fixed penalty. Points are only given by the RSA when the matter is concluded by paying up or losing in court.

djflawless

Without trying to change the topic too much, i recently had a friend who was done for driving with a fone in use....BUT, he was trying to be a smart lad about it.he was wearing a wooly cap and had the fone pushed against his ear with the tightness of the cap...
My question is simple.whats the difference between what he did and a hands free speaker kit?
Both of his hands were being used to control the car and he wasnt holding the fone to his ear

NewApproach

djflawless wrote: »

Without trying to change the topic too much, i recently had a friend who was done for driving with a fone in use....BUT, he was trying to be a smart lad about it.he was wearing a wooly cap and had the fone pushed against his ear with the tightness of the cap...
My question is simple.whats the difference between what he did and a hands free speaker kit?
Both of his hands were being used to control the car and he wasnt holding the fone to his ear

How did the phone get there?
How did they answer it?

Tell 'your friend' to stop being a tit.

ResearchWill

djflawless wrote: »

Without trying to change the topic too much, i recently had a friend who was done for driving with a fone in use....BUT, he was trying to be a smart lad about it.he was wearing a wooly cap and had the fone pushed against his ear with the tightness of the cap...
My question is simple.whats the difference between what he did and a hands free speaker kit?
Both of his hands were being used to control the car and he wasnt holding the fone to his ear

I will refer you to my post above I will highlight the importan bits


Road traffic act 2006


3.— (1) A person shall not while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place hold a mobile phone.

“ hold ”, in relation to a mobile phone, means holding the phone by hand or supporting or cradling it with another part of the body;


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/...0003.html#sec3

BTW there is no offence of using a mobile phone while driving, only holding a mobile phone it does not even have to be turned on. Even picking it up to look at the time could get you into trouble.

slimjimmc

djflawless wrote: »

Without trying to change the topic too much, i recently had a friend who was done for driving with a fone in use....BUT, he was trying to be a smart lad about it.he was wearing a wooly cap and had the fone pushed against his ear with the tightness of the cap...
My question is simple.whats the difference between what he did and a hands free speaker kit?
Both of his hands were being used to control the car and he wasnt holding the fone to his ear

Your answer is in post #17 above.
"supporting or cradling it with another part of the body" includes held by friction against his ear. The phone is still supported by his body. Same with leaving on your lap.

qz

What if a phone was on loudspeaker and in a shirt pocket? Would that be supported by the pocket or supported by the body?

ResearchWill

qz wrote: »

What if a phone was on loudspeaker and in a shirt pocket? Would that be supported by the pocket or supported by the body?

Well if post #33 is correct then you may be in trouble http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=705392

Luca Brasi

ResearchWill wrote: »

I will refer you to my post above I will highlight the importan bits


Road traffic act 2006


3.— (1) A person shall not while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place hold a mobile phone.

“ hold ”, in relation to a mobile phone, means holding the phone by hand or supporting or cradling it with another part of the body;


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/...0003.html#sec3

BTW there is no offence of using a mobile phone while driving, only holding a mobile phone it does not even have to be turned on. Even picking it up to look at the time could get you into trouble.

Thats how they crucified poor Ivor Callelly

djimi

Ive often wondered how this would actually go down in court. If a Gardai were to say that he saw me on a mobile phone and my defense was that I was scratching my ear, and that given my car has tinted windows and presumably I was moving at the time then how could he be 100% certain what he saw, then surely that would put enough doubt in any Gardas story? In order to prosecute on the Gardas word they would need to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that I was guilty; I really dont see how that could be the case here.

Del2005

djimi wrote: »

Ive often wondered how this would actually go down in court. If a Gardai were to say that he saw me on a mobile phone and my defense was that I was scratching my ear, and that given my car has tinted windows and presumably I was moving at the time then how could he be 100% certain what he saw, then surely that would put enough doubt in any Gardas story? In order to prosecute on the Gardas word they would need to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that I was guilty; I really dont see how that could be the case here.

Traffic laws are different to most others. Since driving is a privilege, not a right, they affectively make the law as they want. Some UK drivers took it to the EU court and lost over their penalty notices.

It'll come down to your word against the Garda. Then it'll come down to what mood the judge is in.

ResearchWill

djimi wrote: »

Ive often wondered how this would actually go down in court. If a Gardai were to say that he saw me on a mobile phone and my defense was that I was scratching my ear, and that given my car has tinted windows and presumably I was moving at the time then how could he be 100% certain what he saw, then surely that would put enough doubt in any Gardas story? In order to prosecute on the Gardas word they would need to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that I was guilty; I really dont see how that could be the case here.

You have not spent much time sitting in a district court then I guess.

djimi

Del2005 wrote: »

Traffic laws are different to most others. Since driving is a privilege, not a right, they affectively make the law as they want. Some UK drivers took it to the EU court and lost over their penalty notices.

It'll come down to your word against the Garda. Then it'll come down to what mood the judge is in.

I dont understand that though. How can the word of the Garda be taken as gospel when it can be proven that it would be almost impossible for them to say with any sort of certainty what they have seen given the tinted windows and the fact that the car was moving at the time?

Or can they just come out with any old nonsense and have someone prosecuted based on it without even the slightest shred of credible evidence?

ResearchWill wrote: »

You have not spent much time sitting in a district court then I guess.

None whatsoever, thats why I asked!

ResearchWill

djimi wrote: »

I dont understand that though. How can the word of the Garda be taken as gospel when it can be proven that it would be almost impossible for them to say with any sort of certainty what they have seen given the tinted windows and the fact that the car was moving at the time?

Or can they just come out with any old nonsense and have someone prosecuted based on it without even the slightest shred of credible evidence?



None whatsoever, thats why I asked!

The mistake most people make is they assume what they say will be accepted while believing what the Guard says wont. What I mean in your example most people will just arrive in court and say windows tinted car moving, AGS will say windows not tinted or I could see cleary and car not moving or moving very slow. Most people decide to run the case themselves and get caught up on the wrong issues and don't cross the guard correctly. Hence the Guard is believed. Some DJ's even when presented with enough evidence to cause a doubt still convict meaning having to appeal to Circuit Court.

BTW going to court saying you have front windows that are so tinted you can't see through them would be silly as that is an offence, the Guard would say judge if I could not see through the windows I would have one him for illegal tinting.

Our man in Havana

I doubt you would get far against any garda in a district court.

Now if you have the balls you can appeal the railroading to the circuit court where you will be heard properly.

djimi

ResearchWill wrote: »

The mistake most people make is they assume what they say will be accepted while believing what the Guard says wont. What I mean in your example most people will just arrive in court and say windows tinted car moving, AGS will say windows not tinted or I could see cleary and car not moving or moving very slow. Most people decide to run the case themselves and get caught up on the wrong issues and don't cross the guard correctly. Hence the Guard is believed. Some DJ's even when presented with enough evidence to cause a doubt still convict meaning having to appeal to Circuit Court.

BTW going to court saying you have front windows that are so tinted you can't see through them would be silly as that is an offence, the Guard would say judge if I could not see through the windows I would have one him for illegal tinting.

Theyre not so tinted that they cant be seen through (they passed the NCT), but in my eyes anyway they are tinted enough that it would be hard to tell the difference between being on a phone and scratching my ear as the car passed a Garda. Certainly enough to cast doubt on the word of the Garda.

I guess its just a situation I have to hope that I never find myself in!

shabalala

I got pulled over last year by a traffic bike cop who passed me as i was driving with my elbow on the edge of the door and my hand up to my head. He said i was on the phone, i informed him that i wasnt as my phone was actually at home and i was on my way to collect it. He was having none of it so i offered him the oppourtunity to search my car to show him i had no phone! Again he said he seen me on the phone and was issuing me with a penalty notice. As he was doing so i seen a branch car from the local station and i waved it down..... I explained my situation to them and they spoke to the robocop and i agreed to let them search my car. Of course no phone was found. As the car was being searched the leather bound ass checked my tax,nct, insurance, tyres lights looking for something to do me for. Again nothing. I got his name and badge number and after wrote to the head of the traffic corps in Cork expressing my anger at what can only be described as an ordeal that lasted 25mins. I would have gone to court if need be to be honest, its easy to prove you werent using your phone thanks to call records etc.

Blazer

shabalala wrote: »

traffic corps

enough said...the real cops hate the traffic corp as much as you or I..
they're barely above traffic wardens in their eyes.

I've been caught 3 times breaking the limit in my local town.. I wouldn't mind but every few months the traffic corp from Limerick arrives out obviously to get his quota for the few months or whatever and catches hundreds every time..It's a long stretch of road at least 800m outside where the limit kicks in and he's hiding there waiting for them all.
I wouldn't mind but there's never been a fatality there..but head out of it about 1 mile there's a series of dangerous bends which in the 5 years I've been there has had several fatalities and crashes but you'd never see him there..no where to hide. At least now the bends are in the process of being removed and a straighter road.

_Kaiser_

This thread is yet another reason why our "police force" needs a complete top to bottom clean-up.

As the OP tells it (and we've no reason to disbelieve her), we have a situation where her husband's livelihood could be affected based on "the word" of the Garda in question - a Garda who more than likely realised his mistake when he approached the driver, but seeing as the force is infested with arrogant Dirty Harry wannabe's, would never back down at that stage!

I'm afraid all you can do now is let it go court and appeal it I suppose.. not much comfort and certainly no guarantee, but that's the system we have where the "word" of a representative of a force shown time and again to be corrupt/incompetent/unprofessional is enough to prosecute people. :rolleyes:

Whatever happened to actual evidence and innocent until proven guilty eh??

PrettyBoy wrote: »

The guard stopped me, asked for my licence and immediately told me he was giving me two penalty points. I was totally confused. I explained to him what had just happened and questioned what I had done wrong. He wouldn't even listen, he said something to the effect of "you ran a red light, you're getting the points, simple as".

I knew I was dealing with a prick at this stage, I told him then to give me his name and badge number. He questioned why, I told him I was going to appeal and again requested his name and badge number. He immediately changed his tune and asked me to explain what happened again, he must have listened to me that time because he apologized, gave me back my licence and apologized again before getting back on his bike.

+1 to this. ALWAYS get the name, badge/shoulder number, and home station of the Garda before you give them anything. That way if you do need to follow-up/appeal it's very easily done - plus as in the above case, it may make them think twice about harassing you any further.

I'm amazed though that the apologists/Gardai themselves (declared or otherwise) that post here aren't all over this thread yet to tell the OP she and her husband are making it up/have a chip on their shoulders/are wrong/where's the link etc etc

Bloody Keystone Cops brigade. Totally serves to discredit the work done by those on the force who actually do take the job and the RESPONSIBILITY - and potential consequences it has for people - seriously!

Del2005

shabalala wrote: »

I got pulled over last year by a traffic bike cop who passed me as i was driving with my elbow on the edge of the door and my hand up to my head. He said i was on the phone, i informed him that i wasnt as my phone was actually at home and i was on my way to collect it. He was having none of it so i offered him the oppourtunity to search my car to show him i had no phone! Again he said he seen me on the phone and was issuing me with a penalty notice. As he was doing so i seen a branch car from the local station and i waved it down..... I explained my situation to them and they spoke to the robocop and i agreed to let them search my car. Of course no phone was found. As the car was being searched the leather bound ass checked my tax,nct, insurance, tyres lights looking for something to do me for. Again nothing. I got his name and badge number and after wrote to the head of the traffic corps in Cork expressing my anger at what can only be described as an ordeal that lasted 25mins. I would have gone to court if need be to be honest, its easy to prove you werent using your phone thanks to call records etc.

Call logs would be handy if the offence was using a mobile phone. The offence is holding a mobile phone. The Guard could argue that they stopped you before you made the call, it comes down to your word against a Garda. Who do you think the judge will believe?

_Kaiser_

Voodoomelon wrote: »

It happens us all, getting stuck in a crappy traffic situation like that. But you broke a red light and he was entitled to give you points, you were lucky.

Is he not still in "control" of the junction at that point and in fact other cars should yield to him until he clears it? A green light doesn't just mean "floor it" - it's more "proceed if safe to do so" after all.

I can think of many junctions like this where you have to move forward (and right if you can) to let cars behind you go straight ahead while you wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic.

What was he meant to do? Sit in the middle of the junction till the next cycle of lights? (not having a go at you - just pointing out the absurdity of the situation)

Cartel Mike

Hi, same thing happened to me just two weeks ago. It was dark, I was driving in the left lane of dual carriage way , phone rang ,I lifted it from the passenger seat just to see the ID name of the caller with my left hand and just put it straight back down again.

Seconds later a squad car flashes its lights behind me. I guess they saw the lights on the phone.

He took details ,checked car from front to back, said I'd get a fine and penalty points.

I asked if there was an appeal section on the fine. His response was to tell me to get out of the car and shout at me for few mins. Lovely chap.

I was so angry I grabbed my phone and showed him the 'missed call' log on my phone and the time. More shouting from him and telling me to look him in the eye when he was talking to me etc etc.

I'd already tried to explain this to him when I pulled over but it was clear he was on a power trip and initially all he did was laugh sarcastically and say that he 'saw' me talking on it.

When he had finished shouting I told him to write his little fine and send it as I'd put the phone records in my appeal ask for his dash cam evidence and he'd look a right clown in Court.
(I gave him plenty if lip cause I thought his conduct was a disgrace).


The fine never came.

I've heard similar stories in the last week of people being fined for extremely dubious offences and there seems to be an aggressive agenda to bring in as much money as possible before xmas

ResearchWill

Cartel Mike wrote: »

Hi, same thing happened to me just two weeks ago. It was dark, I was driving in the left lane of dual carriage way , phone rang ,I lifted it from the passenger seat just to see the ID name of the caller with my left hand and just put it straight back down again.

Seconds later a squad car flashes its lights behind me. I guess they saw the lights on the phone.

He took details ,checked car from front to back, said I'd get a fine and penalty points.

I asked if there was an appeal section on the fine. His response was to tell me to get out of the car and shout at me for few mins. Lovely chap.

I was so angry I grabbed my phone and showed him the 'missed call' log on my phone and the time. More shouting from him and telling me to look him in the eye when he was talking to me etc etc.

I'd already tried to explain this to him when I pulled over but it was clear he was on a power trip and initially all he did was laugh sarcastically and say that he 'saw' me talking on it.

When he had finished shouting I told him to write his little fine and send it as I'd put the phone records in my appeal ask for his dash cam evidence and he'd look a right clown in Court.
(I gave him plenty if lip cause I thought his conduct was a disgrace).


The fine never came.

I've heard similar stories in the last week of people being fined for extremely dubious offences and there seems to be an aggressive agenda to bring in as much money as possible before xmas

I have posted the legislation, you did break the law as you admit to lifting up the phone. It's not using a mobile it's holding a mobile.

3.— (1) A person shall not while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place hold a mobile phone.

“ hold ”, in relation to a mobile phone, means holding the phone by hand or supporting or cradling it with another part of the body;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0023/sec0003.html#sec3

guil

A few years ago I had the same thing. Coming through a small village and a cop had a car pulled in. There was a pillar in the truck beside my head and I had my arm on it with my hand at my head.

Cop puts the hand up an stopped me and said pull in over there. So she comes over and said you were on the phone. I handed her my phone and said check it so she goes and checked tax and ins and told me to produce in 10 days etc.

A few months later I get a summons for using the phone and rang the guard and she basically said tough I saw you on the phone pay the fine or go to court. Naas is the local court and the judge hates motoring offences with a passion and I was looking at a fine of at least €400 so I got a solicitor. Another one told me to go to court and take my medicine that the judge would believe the guard.

In the end I had 3 days in court and time off work and the judge asked how did I plead. Solicitor said not guilty and I think an inspector stood up and said he was instructed to withdraw the charge. What a load of bollox and I was down €250 for the solicitor. I think it was this time last year when I was in court

keano25

Lawless2k12 wrote: »

I'd say get the time and date that he was stopped which I assume is on the ticket, get a list of the calls made from your husbands phone for that day and just hope he hadn't made a call within 20 or 30 minutes (Just to be on the safe side) of when he was ticketed. If he presents that to the guard in question it should be okay. If the guard refuses then take him to court. Half the guards now days wont show up for cases like this because they know they have less evidence of a call being made than the suspected offender does of not making the call. Without a list of calls and times it's just your word against a guard and the judge is obviously going to side with the guard in that situation... just my two cents...

Sure that proves noting, I could go away and get anyone's phone with a list of calls not made at the time.

guil

The charge is holding a mobile phone not using it so call history is pointless

keithclancy

guil wrote: »

The charge is holding a mobile phone not using it so call history is pointless

I would think that the thinking behind the act is a catch all for mobile phone usage i.e. Texting, Data, Speaker Phone to remove the possibility of things like the 'hip flash defence'

You're allowed to give evidence and I think that showing no data, sms or calls at the time of the offense would be sufficient to prove that you had no reason to hold your mobile phone.

Actually you could just say you were holding a banana to your ear which would make about as much sense as holding a mobile phone to your ear without using it.

If usage had no bearing in it, then there wouldn't be a provision there to allow USAGE of the phone to call the Gardai or for genuine emergencies.

guil

keithclancy wrote: »

I would think that the thinking behind the act is a catch all for mobile phone usage i.e. Texting, Data, Speaker Phone to remove the possibility of things like the 'hip flash defence'

You're allowed to give evidence and I think that showing no data, sms or calls at the time of the offense would be sufficient to prove that you had no reason to hold your mobile phone.

Actually you could just say you were holding a banana to your ear which would make about as much sense as holding a mobile phone to your ear without using it.

If usage had no bearing in it, then there wouldn't be a provision there to allow USAGE of the phone to call the Gardai or for genuine emergencies.

who is to say that you were not about the send a text or make a phone call?

Solair

It's a badly written law.

What'll ultimately happen is someone will get charged in the wrong, appeal it all the way up the courts and the law will end up unenforcible.

It should be making / receiving calls or texts. That's provable with mobile phone records.

There are too many other things that could be confused for holding a phone! E.g. scratching your ear!

Do we all now have to drive along in fear of having an itchy ear?!

keithclancy

guil wrote: »

who is to say that you were not about the send a text or make a phone call?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0023/sec0003.html#sec3

Why bother define the following then:

(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3), in relation to holding a mobile phone while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle, or under subsection (6), in relation to the use of a mobile phone or an in-vehicle communication device, to show that he or she was—

(a) using it to call the Garda Síochána, an ambulance, fire or other emergency service on numbers prescribed for such service, or

(b) involved in or acting in response to a genuine emergency.

and

“ interactive communication function ” includes—

(a) sending or receiving oral or written messages,

(b) sending or receiving facsimile documents,

(c) sending or receiving still or moving images, or

(d) providing access to the internet;

Why define any of that if its not possible to provide any form of proof.

Solair

If you are sending faxes while driving you deserve everything you get

When was this law written 1987?!

Also, bear in mind that most smart phones are always on the internet, so the records of email / data traffic could show that the phone was in use, even if it was in the glove compartment.

keithclancy

Solair wrote: »

If you are sending faxes while driving you deserve everything you get

When was this law written 1987?!

Also, bear in mind that most smart phones are always on the internet, so the records of email / data traffic could show that the phone was in use.

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/jerry-rigged-mobile-office-t-keep-driver-being-190056817.html

You laugh :pac::pac: