Legal Advice

[BabyClaret]

If they have hard evidence to support it, then they need to disclose it to you.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/disclosure

Did the summons come with any supporting documentation i.e. photos, videos etc.

I am not sure how a member of the public can report a traffic offence and the OB thinks they can get a nick out of it. For example, community speed watches cannot issue tickets.

Personally mate I would get myself onto something like http://www.pepipoo.com/ and get their advice.

They don't need to disclose unless Chalks was to go to Magistrates Court and plead not guilty - and at that point disclosure deadlines for trial would be set.

Disclosure being the legal process that is - they could provide it but under no legal obligation and doubt they would.

[Mega Ron]

Pay the fine and move on Chalks.

Life is too short and this is just a **** lesson to learn.

[Heysel76]

You could say, you picked up your phone as you were worried about a potential robbery (by the cyclist)
Obviously that would be admitting you picked up the phone.

[S-H]

Time for a new motor, I reckon..

[3times]

As someone has already said - get on www.peppipoo.co.uk. They are pretty good on there.

Go to court as the fine/points do not change and there would have to be full disclosure.

[BabyClaret]

As someone has already said - get on www.peppipoo.co.uk. They are pretty good on there.

Go to court as the fine/points do not change and there would have to be full disclosure.

Full disclosure if he pleads not guilty - but if the case was to then proceed to trial and lose he would then be liable for prosecution costs on top of the fine and points.

Even if he was to plead guilty after the first hearing and full disclosure (eg on the day of the trial) you would then also be liable for a part of the costs.

[mushy]

You could say, you picked up your phone as you were worried about a potential robbery (by the cyclist)
Obviously that would be admitting you picked up the phone.

Under the Lampard defence you are allowed to pick up your phone, as long as you are not interacting with it.
This is the loophole exploited by Lampards defence lawyer. Interacting means making a call, texting or using the internet. He said he was using the phone to make a voice note, which isn't covered by current legislation apparently.
So unless your guy has a film of your phone that states on the front 'call from Chalks Dad' am not sure how they prove it.
Having said that, it's probably one law for the rich etc etc

[prophet:marginal]

There are legal firms specialising in precisely this and other areas of driving law, who, at a nice big fee, take to pieces the prosecution of a case of this nature and often find defects or technicalities.

One thing you should however bear in mind is that evidence doesn't have to come from the police for the case to stand up in court. There's no special rule here for driving matters. I reckon the likeliest scenario here is that the witness had something mounted on his handlebars that was recording his trip (similar to a dashcam). All he needs to capture is the vehicle in motion and the handset 'in use', which is objectively possible, with the height of the camera and his ability to weave in and out of traffic on his bike.

Prosecutions succeed all the time, even if they are based on CCTV or other moving images that are captured by a shop-keeper, someone's doorbell device, or even the camera on a passing bus (Sarah Everard's killer being a famous example).

What someone who was happy to gamble the money might want to do is to insist on a statement from the person who captured the footage in question, but as BabyClaret notes, this might only be available after a NG plea is entered, in a matter where the Crown claims (and gets) its costs with every successful prosecution.

[Mega Ron]

In terms of actually fighting it, is it a plausible excuse to say that you have your phone connected to the dash (via magnet perhaps as that's what I do) and that it fell off.

[fjthegrey]

Unless there's a photo of you holding it, I wouldn't be admitting I had my phone in my hand to anybody.

[Upminster Hammer]

I guess the evidence they have is the phone on you, or you holding the phone and then they will be able to get call records which show a call to your father-in-law at the time.

As Mega Ron said, you could say it fell from where ever it was placed and you were merely putting it back.

it is difficult to put together a defense without knowing exactly what evidence they have. Are there any police on the site that could give advice on how damning the evidence needs to be for them to take this on?

[PF.]

Are there any police on the site that could give advice on how damning the evidence needs to be for them to take this on?

f*** that sideways, backwards and whichever way you want to. The majority of the police are ****ing clueless ****ers and wouldn't know the difference. Useless bunch of tosspots who hide behind resource issues rather than being incompetent ****wits unable to find their place in the normal world.

Of course, the legal eagles are the ones who can help, and judging by the posts of claret baby, I'd imagine he's in the profession - as a few other prominent posters are too.

@Chalks, have you spoken to Wellsy yet? He'll almost certainly connect you with someone more knowledgable than all of us for a chat to get the full breakdown.

And finally, the magistrates will likely go against you. They aren't a jury - they're more similar to this twat who filmed you.

Good luck mate.

[Samba]

All he needs to capture is the vehicle in motion and the handset 'in use', which is objectively possible, with the height of the camera and his ability to weave in and out of traffic on his bike.

Thing is though proph, chalks did say that his vehicle wasn't in motion at the time (I know it wasn't parked up, either).
If the only thing that the busybody c*nt filmed was the phone on chalks' knee, is that necessarily proof that chalks was using it?
As people have said though, the trouble is we don't know exactly what was caught on film.

[prophet:marginal]

I said 'objectively possible' to cover the likely scenario.

[westham,eggyandchips]

Was the chap the little bald South African who films and grasses people on YouTube?

He’s a militant cyclist, could well be him.

He's a legend.

[Joffrey]

Unfortunately you get the justice you pay for.

Those who can afford to roll the dice and take it through the disclosure process, incurring their own costs and a potential liability for prosecution costs may find that they have a winnable case. If they don’t they pay up and walk away.

Those who can’t afford it plead guilty.