Police " Evidence " !

There is no doubt that a huge number of people willfully break the law that demands we do not hold a mobile phone to our ear while driving.  Driving while making a phone call or texting sharply increases the risk factor of a crash and the law is explicit.   We may not hold or touch any mobile phone while the engine of the car is turned on and the motor is running, so it is still illegal to answer a call while a car is stationery, waiting for a green light.

Last year 35,000 New South Wales motorists were fined over $ 10 million for this offence and each deducted demerit points from the license holder. One such fine recently came to court before a magistrate, and was dismissed, but it raises some interesting questions.

Nine months ago a heavily pregnant woman was pulled over and fined for using a mobile phone while driving.  She protested her innocence, but she alleges the officer told her they had video footage of her committing the offence.  She demanded to see this footage - and the request was refused. Eventually, the matter went to court.

The police are required to submit a written statement of evidence whenever they book a mobile phone offence and the front seat passenger in the police car claimed he saw this woman hold a black mobile phone to her ear.  The mobile phone this woman owns is white - and her car is fitted with the equipment to legally allow use of a mobile phone while driving using it's Bluetooth component.  The woman thought the officer may have misinterpreted her placing black sunglasses on with her hand movement to her ear.

In court, the officer who issued her fine denied her claim that he told her they had video evidence, although he agreed that she demanded to see the video.  Inconsistencies by the prosecution convinced the magistrate to dismiss the charge, but that leaves the matter of those demerit points still in place.  It is one of the peculiarities of New South Wales law that dismissal of a charge does not automatically also cancel demerit points caused by that charge.

Most people booked by police for any sort of offence simply pay the fine and accept the consequences.  It is generally accepted that if such a dispute boils down to conflicting statements by both the police and the motorist, the magistrate will always decide in favour of the police, hence going to court is a waste of time.   This woman was adamant that she would never risk the life of her unborn child, and she had taken the trouble to have her car equipped to remove the need to hold a mobile phone to her ear.  This charge offended her so greatly that she was determined to see this supposed "evidence " presented in court.

Many people are suspicious that the police are subjected to "quotas " when it comes to traffic bookings and the revenue they deliver.  The authorities claim this is a myth but the opportunity certainly exists to "pad " the number of convictions with dodgy evidence if a police officer was so inclined.   In particular, using radar for speed detection is a contentious matter and those with a mobile phone in their car would be well advised to keep both hands on the wheel at all times.

Of course, technology is also a double edged sword.   We are now seeing more cars fitted with traffic cameras and the vast network of cctv cameras captures footage that sometimes negates what police claim to have happened - and now that every mobile phone also has a very efficient camera a question mark hangs over what ordinary members of the public may have recorded.

This dismissal of a mobile phone offence stresses how imperative it is to see all police equipped with a camera as part of their uniform.   With both sound and video, both the police and the public are protected from the differing evidence presented when this matter went to court.

The only question is how rapidly this can be implemented !