Free Traffic Legal Advice

I recently got a letter in the post from the police asking for driver details as someone had been seen using a mobile on such and such day last month.
Anyway there was no doubt that I was the driver, however I cannot remember using my phone. It has now gone to conditional offer £200 + 6 points. I though they would offer me a course.

Anyway after ringing the phone number multiple times the operator said it had appeared that a policeman had passed me on the dual carriage way and seen me holding phone to my ear.
She was hesitant when I asked if it was 1 officer or 2 so I think its 1. Apparently there wasn't any footage and I asked her why they didn't stop me she said they probably had other things to do.

I have had dealings with the police before and for anyone whos in any doubt they are liars I would say they lie every time they move their lips.

But although I have asked for disclosure I doubt Ill get it. Its unbelievable that motorists are held to ransom like this. They know that seeing a solicitor going to set you back more than £200 but being asked to take a conviction without seeing any evidence against you or youll get a fair trial from a magistrate who wont think about the real question which is the benefit of doubt has to go to the defendent and just convict you and then punish you for questioning the system.

You won't get disclosure of the evidence unless you decline the Fixed Penalty offer and choose to have the matter heard in court. When you are prosecuted you will be served with the evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you. From what you say, this will probably consist simply of a statement from the officer who is alleging the offence.

If you defend the matter you will have to ask for the officer to attend to give evidence in person. You will have the opportunity to cross examine him or her and must be able to cast doubt on the evidence so that the court cannot be sure that you are guilty. If they have any doubt they must acquit you.

When making their decision, the court will have in mind that the officer has nothing in particular to gain from your conviction and quite a bit to lose if it is discovered that perjury has been committed. You, on the other hand, have quite a bit to gain from being acquitted and as well as that, you are not certain that you were not using your phone.

One thing is fairly certain: if you approach this on the basis that you believe that police officers "...lie every time they move their lips" and that the court will "...just convict you and then punish you for questioning the system", you are unlikely to see a successful outcome.

Don't they need evidence to convict?

Yes, the prosecution will need evidence.

.... and they have it, the witness statement (which if required can be challenged in court).

Dave I wast planning on using that as a defense. I would say a never use my phone while driving and the officer was mistaken. And the benefit of the doubt should go to the defendant.
I just don't want to make my situation worse by being served up a bad verdict. As I understand it 6 points is on par with driving with no insurance does anyone know the insurance bump this will cause?

Dave I wast planning on using that as a defense. I would say a never use my phone while driving and the officer was mistaken. And the benefit of the doubt should go to the defendant.

As you have already stated that you don't remember using your phone rather than simply saying you never use it when driving, using that as a defence in court will be perjury and if the proof is found of you using it (either from the phone logs or from your service provider), the outcome could well be far worse than 6 points on your licence.

As to the benefit of the doubt. There will be a police officer giving a sworn statement that they saw you on the phone, a statement that they have no reason to make up and it's highly probable that the judge will believe them over you.

Your own evidence might consist of your phone logs at that time, either retrieved from your device or, more impressively, provided by your service provider

"Using" a handheld mobile telephone or other device as listed in the legislation can simply be illuminating the screen. Whilst call logs (either from the telco or from your own whatsapp call logs/messages) show you didn't call or message anyone, they do not prove you weren't using the device.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/110

But in this case, the officer is saying he saw them holding the phone up to their ear, so wouldn't call logs proving no calls were active be good evidence? 

While it may be evidence that there were no calls in progress at the time, that is not evidence that the phone was not being "used". Could have been listening to all sorts of other things apart from a call. To make an argument that the phone wasn't being "used" when held up to one's ear isn't one I would want to try in a court.