LEGAL HELP NEEDED

[Gene Hunt]

I have to say, I've a lot of respect for you not taking it lying down, which after reading all this, is what I suspect I'd do in the same situation. Sounds like a whole load of hassle!

...........x2  . Good on you.

[RedRobin]

^^^^
I think that if you believe you are in the right then you should always stand up and fight for fair justice. Anyway, there's also a hassle in having penalty points.

I once fought against Great Ormond Street Hospital in The High Court. The hearing only lasted a couple of days but the lead up was months. My now ex wife wanted to give up but by not giving up I saved our son from experimental surgery - It was absolutely worth all the effort. GOS is not all it claims it is!

[sub39h]

^^^^
I think that if you believe you are in the right then you should always stand up and fight for fair justice. Anyway, there's also a hassle in having penalty points.

I once fought against Great Ormond Street Hospital in The High Court. The hearing only lasted a couple of days but the lead up was months. My now ex wife wanted to give up but by not giving up I saved our son from experimental surgery - It was absolutely worth all the effort. GOS is not all it claims it is!

may i ask why would you had to take that to the High Court? if your son was either not legally competent to consent and your ex wife had refused or your son was legally competent and refused consent then that's the end of the matter in the eyes of the law. (the mother has more parental responsibility than the father in the eyes of the law.)

whilst i appreciate (and i mean this with no disrespect at all RR) that for your son to be young enough to be in GOS this might have been a while ago, i'm not aware that these laws have been changed recently.

[RedRobin]

^^^^
The matter was about parental consent and our (both parents) refusal to give that consent. GOS took the matter to The High Court but I fought back and they backed down. That's really as much as I want to go into as the whole experience was very unpleasant and has very unhappy memories and is also very off-topic - Sorry for that.

I mentioned my case just as a directly experienced example of how it can be worth fighting for or defending what you believe.

[sub39h]

no problem RR 

[56OctyVRS]

The problem I see with your phone records defence is that you could have been using anyones phone. You really need to seek legal advise CPS will use stated cases and now how to present evidence. I am a Police Officer myself and now how the system works. At a trial they will call both Officers as witnesses so it becomes 2 against 1. The small typo on the date doesnt matter. I have been guilty of that when doing paperwork at 3am and been tired. Happens to us all. If I was you I would seek legal advise and let a solicitor do your arguing for you. They know about case law and stated cases they can use to help defend you.

[sub39h]

The problem I see with your phone records defence is that you could have been using anyones phone. You really need to seek legal advise CPS will use stated cases and now how to present evidence. I am a Police Officer myself and now how the system works. At a trial they will call both Officers as witnesses so it becomes 2 against 1. The small typo on the date doesnt matter. I have been guilty of that when doing paperwork at 3am and been tired. Happens to us all. If I was you I would seek legal advise and let a solicitor do your arguing for you. They know about case law and stated cases they can use to help defend you.

these are in effect criminal proceedings tho, right? so the officers would have to argue that he was using someone else's phone, that that call was not registered on his calls as registered by his phone company and not on the bluetooth he has fitted in the vehicle he was driving.

going further and further from "beyond reasonable doubt", no?

[h4rdy]

The problem I see with your phone records defence is that you could have been using anyones phone. You really need to seek legal advise CPS will use stated cases and now how to present evidence. I am a Police Officer myself and now how the system works. At a trial they will call both Officers as witnesses so it becomes 2 against 1. The small typo on the date doesnt matter. I have been guilty of that when doing paperwork at 3am and been tired. Happens to us all. If I was you I would seek legal advise and let a solicitor do your arguing for you. They know about case law and stated cases they can use to help defend you.

Did they take your phone number and check it by calling you at the time?

I suspect they might say 'how do we know you don't have another phone?'

[sub39h]

that's my point: surely if that was the prosecution's argument then the burden of proof is on them that he was using someone else's phone? innocent until proven guilty and all that.

i think getting a lawyer would be the sensible thing to do

[h4rdy]

My friend is a Policeman and he said even if he is on his own, its his word against yours and they will always go with Officer of the Law.

He gets loads of 'prove its' he finds it quite funny.

[sub39h]

yes but in the circumstance above his word isn't "you were on the phone", it was "you were on someone else's phone". if they don't have to prove that, beyond reasonable doubt, then i will have lost quite a lot of faith in the legal system. 

at the end of the day, if the OP hasn't done anything wrong then he shouldn't suffer for this. that's the bottom line really. the legal case shouldn't be built on what ifs until it is impossible for the defendant to maintain his innocence.

[56OctyVRS]

Simply all they would have to say is that they witnessed someone with a phone positioned near to their head talking. Usually if i have someone saying that they were not on the phone I would seize it as evidence. The fact that someone has logs saying that they were not on their phone at that time will not be an instant get out of jail free card. Thats why I would get a solicitor to argue it using stayed cases. Its like if you see someone punch another person but they dont have any visible injuries. It doesnt negate that the offence didnt take place. It just means that it will come down to witness accounts to prove or disprove the offence.

[RedRobin]

^^^^
I can see why the next hearing is called a 'trial'! But it's trying the evidence rather than Patrick as a criminal (subtle difference?).

If we look at the case and assume that the OP Patrick is in fact totally innocent of what he is being charged with, it then might seem slightly ridiculous that a matter of a driver's hand supporting his head and singing is brought as far as a trial.

But we must also accept that the Police have innocently acted in doing their duty as they saw it - Reporting the illegal use of a phone while driving. However, by hearing all sides in a courtroom is how fair justice may hopefully be established. That is what is meant to happen.

Sorry, but I still have a niggle about the possibility of a Driving Without Due Care and Attention charge as it adds weight to the CPS case and it's unclear to me whether Patrick was actually driving while supporting his head (and singing) rather than only doing so while he was still stationary at the traffic lights. It also makes me think that 56OctyVRS's advice to get a solicitor is very good advice. I would suggest a specialist such as Patterson Law:

http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/index.php  < I have no direct personal experience of using them but they seem to have a good realistic approach and, very importantly, are specialists.

One thing I can strongly advise from experience is that a SPECIALIST solicitor/lawyer in ALL cases is an absolute must! The technicalities of law are mighty complex and not necessarily related at all to emotional judgement.

[RedRobin]

.
In very simple terms, a Police Officer upholds the law by reporting what he/she/they see as infringements of the law and the matter is only brought to court if the defendant wishes to contest what is alleged by the Police.

You are not in reality completely 'innocent' until proved guilty but your innocence is put in question at the very moment Police stop you and, if you protest your innocence the matter is then resolved later in a formal court.

Sorry if I appear to be stating the obvious but there are always two sides to every story and again that is why a court system is a good thing. We can enjoy speculating and try to advise but the bottom line is what happens in the courtroom.

[R32UK]

speak to a solicitor that specialises in motoring offences. 

that sounds like I good idea... i would suggest the same thing   


take it from someone that has experience