One of our drivers was stopped and reported for using a handheld phone whilst driving his lorry. Plod said he has video evidence but it was “too complicated” to show it to the driver at the roadside. Driver said he wasn’t using his phone as company provide (crap) hands free kit and said driver isn’t known as “Bluetooth” for nothing.
He’s getting phone records to prove innocence but plod says he can still be done just for holding the phone. Surely it can’t just be on plods’ word, he’d need to provide evidence and prove the drivers’ guilt, not the driver to prove innocence.
I understand getting caught using a handheld is gross misconduct where I work so this driver could lose his job just 'cos PC Prat needs to reach his quota for the month.
Any advice?
Cop needs collaboration.
If he says he wasn’t using it and plod says he has video evidence, go to court and see the evidence… in fact, a good brief should be able to see the video evidence before it gets to court!
This is what’s known as calling their bluff!
Of course, if it is proved he was using his phone and not a hands free, then he deserves to lose his job!
EastAnglianTrucker:
Of course, if it is proved he was using his phone and not a hands free, then he deserves to lose his job!
Nonsense.
Police officer on foot patrol sees a person with gloves on throwing brick through a window - person gets prosecuted - no extra evidence needed
Police officer on foot patrol sees a driver using a hand held mobile - driver gets prosecuted - no extra evidence needed
The court will take the word of the police officer because it is reasonable to assume that an officer would not make up such things
If, for example, the ‘villain’ says that the officer is mad with them because of something personal in the past then a different view may be taken by the court
I was stopped by traffic police in Droitwich last week for holding my phone whilst going through a roundabout.
Got a bollocking…That was lucky!
ROG:
The court will take the word of the police officer because it is reasonable to assume that an officer would not make up such things
This is my understanding too.
I would imagine if it goes to court and the policeman has claimed to have video evidence and then cannot produce it, that will be the end of it.
of course he can always deny saying he had video evidence 
Poor muckaway got his collar felt 
Does the TC not ban you from driving for 2 weeks if you get caught using a mobile, sure there was a thread about this not long ago.
well it pointless getting phone records as that proves nothing, you dont need too be on the phone too someone you just need too be holding it. as a note now if the guy does get fined the police may inform the traffic commisioner and he/she may/will have that vocational part off him for at least a month providing he has no other misdemeanours on his record
merc0447:
Poor muckaway got his collar feltDoes the TC not ban you from driving for 2 weeks if you get caught using a mobile, sure there was a thread about this not long ago.
depends on the tc, some are 2 weeks but most are a month, depends on how long ago you commited the crime
merc0447:
Poor muckaway got his collar feltDoes the TC not ban you from driving for 2 weeks if you get caught using a mobile, sure there was a thread about this not long ago.
I doubt it, I’ve been in the quarry for 6months, although if it’s proven I could be back driving…Not in nice circumstances though.
Drivers have been prosecuted for just holding or even moving their mobile phone.
What gets me is seeing all these TV programmes with plod doing 100mph plus, with head on one side, looking at the road out of the corner of his eye and with one hand operating his two way radio.
This of course is a different superhuman species - ‘homo plodiens’.
‘homo plodiens’ 
Don’t forget that this species have undergone a ‘special’ test.Oh , hang on … 
.Anyway,what is the difference between moving a mobile phone and moving sunglasses on or off your head ■■?
Didn’t the comedian Jimmy Carr get a showbiz lawyer to get him off a charge of using a hand held while driving? Iirc the brief said his client had been recording a joke he’d just thought of, therefore was using it as a recording device, not as a communication device.
Still must’ve had hold of it though.
They won’t have video’d him from the police car, they observe motorists using gantry mounted cameras.
the maoster:
Didn’t the comedian Jimmy Carr get a showbiz lawyer to get him off a charge of using a hand held while driving? Iirc the brief said his client had been recording a joke he’d just thought of, therefore was using it as a recording device, not as a communication device.Still must’ve had hold of it though.
Yes, and the premise of the case was that it’s not illegal to hold a mobile phone, only to use the mobile phone.
As he was using the voice recorder and not making a phone call, no offence was committed.
whataloadofcrap.com … HTH.
GBPub:
EastAnglianTrucker:
Of course, if it is proved he was using his phone and not a hands free, then he deserves to lose his job!Nonsense.
Remarkably well argued point there GBPub… Well done!
Harry Monk:
They won’t have video’d him from the police car, they observe motorists using gantry mounted cameras.
He was “caught” between the 2 laybys on the A40 at Eynsham. Plod was waiting to come out of a layby. Apart from Plod being a lying slang term for ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, why would it be too complicated to show the footage?