£2,600 to clear name

Mike Keegan

January 28, 2008

| Submit Comments | Comments (19) | Previous | Next

Anthony Jones with wife Debbie.

A LORRY driver has won a David and Goliath court battle after three police officers claimed he used his mobile phone behind the wheel.

Anthony Jones faced a £60 fine after being told he had been spotted using the phone as he drove.

But Mr Jones, 41, from Denton, knew he was innocent and spent £2,600 to collect the evidence he needed to clear his name and fight the fine in court. His defence team used a tachometer report - which records the movement of his lorry - and a list from his mobile provider to prove he was not on the phone at the time.

After this was revealed to magistrates in Tameside, they cleared him of the offence and also said the £2,600 he had spent would be paid back.

The court heard how the officers had stopped the skip-lorry driver in Ashton town centre last May. All three claimed they had seen him holding something to his ear, but could not be sure it was a mobile phone.

Stationary

Information from Mr Jones's mobile provider showed he was not on the phone at that time and the tachometer showed that the lorry was stationary.

Mr Jones took the case to court after refusing to pay the fine on `principle'.

He and his wife Debbie revealed later that it could have ruined them.

"There were times when I felt like packing it in and paying up," said Mr Jones. "But it was a matter of principle. I had done nothing wrong and I was not guilty. I'm an honest guy."

He said not everyone accused of using a phone at the wheel would have been as fortunate as him, as a friend had helped by putting up the money to get the reports and, as a lorry driver, he also had the tachometer chart.

"Not everybody would have had that," he said.

He said: "This has cost taxpayers like me money that it shouldn't have done. The whole thing has been a nightmare and shouldn't have happened."

Magistrates heard the officer in charge had failed to take data from the phone, so the prosecution had to rely on the memories of the three officers.

Defence solicitor Carl Millar said: "It was clear that the case should not have reached the courts. The prosecution had to prove without any doubt that Mr Jones was on his phone.

"They clearly didn't do that."

| Submit Comments | Comments (19) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 19 and replies | View All

Mike (28/01/2008 at 08:38)

Well done David on your battle, as we all know the Police are not here anymore to catch real criminals they are here to make up their monthly detection rates by the means of picking on the petty, easy to detect crimes.

sallyg, Lancs (28/01/2008 at 10:19)

THREE officers? And they all made the same mistake?

I trust they will be dealt with accordingly?

Bejjy ex Salford now Malta, Malta (28/01/2008 at 11:34)

And what is going to happen to the three police officers who "mistakenly witnessed" David using his mobile phone whilst driving. We could excuse one officer for making a genuine mistake but when three officers.....

anthony (28/01/2008 at 12:14)

WHY don't the over-payed police go after criminals. That's what we pay them for instead of setting up speeding traps. They are so lazy.

The Bobelesque (28/01/2008 at 12:22)

Well done fella!

Now, about the three bobies - what will happen to them?

Perhaps they ought to spend time trying to catch real criminals rather than day dreaming.

Mark Spencer, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire. (28/01/2008 at 12:36)

Quote: "Anthony Jones faced a £60 fine"

He could have been fined £2,500 as it was a commercial vehicle - Looking forward to the names of the officers being published so as not to tar ALL the bobbies in Tameside.

the beer baron (28/01/2008 at 12:40)

Another fine effort from our beloved police service. Makes you feel so safe at night knowing their protecting us.

Mark,Radcliffe. (28/01/2008 at 13:24)

If all 3 Officers couldn't be sure it was a mobile phone.Then the fixed penalty notice should never have been issued in the first place.But then to proceed all the way to Court,in the full knowledge of this uncertainty,is scandalous.

The Right to Reply (28/01/2008 at 13:27)

Well done mate, sick of the POLICE chasing people going about their business in cars, easy targets,easy income, get the guys with the Guns etc! Yes the Police will say, we hear that everyday, well get the Police on the streets and stop the yobs, guns, crime PLEASE.

Technobabble, Manchester (28/01/2008 at 15:08)

So on the one hand you have scientific and technical evidence from both the mobile phone network and his tachograph proved he was neither moving nor even on the phone, and on the other you have some unconfirmed claim that he had "something held to his ear". Yet this gets dragged right through the courts until the police are forced to capitulate........

Laura Norder, Didsbury (28/01/2008 at 15:23)

It's the CPS, (Criminals' Protection Society) that should be receiving the brickbats for running with this case - not the bobbies.

They seem to have called it as they saw it... though I'm glad an 'innocent man' was found not guilty.

The Bobelesque (28/01/2008 at 15:35)

Mark, Techno: it went to court because it's us and not the Police who pay for the court costs.

Perhaps, the cost of failed trials should be born by the Police budget, that might make them think a bit harder before trotting off to court.

jomov, Manchester (28/01/2008 at 15:35)

Mmmm...i suppose convicting robbers, murderers and the like wouldn't make them money...

Technobabble, Manchester (28/01/2008 at 16:03)

Bobelesque, Laura Norder: a couple of excellent points. This working man had to put his hand in his own pocket to fight his corner at risk of losing, whereas the powers-that-be have no such double jeopardy; if they win they get Anthony Jones' fines and court costs. If they lose then we the taxpayers foot the bill.

As for the CPS, they might have run with the ball, but not without the initial and continuing support of the police officers in question. Once they made an accusation, they were apparently unwilling to back down, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Don't get me wrong, i'm a big supporter of the police, personally knowing several officers across the area. This is EXACTLY why i know how they are forced to be target diven by their managers and the politicians.

Garfield (28/01/2008 at 16:04)

well done anthony nice to hear agood story with good outcomes!!!.

Mark,Radcliffe. (28/01/2008 at 16:24)

Bobel I dont think the reason for this case ending up in Court,is one of we the taxpayer paying for it...It went to Court because the CPS felt there was a case to answer;that was based on,presumably,the statements of 3 Officers.Then the same 3 Officers go to Court and testify they werent sure it was a mobile phone they saw.Had this fact been disclosed at an earlier stage,like in their original statements,the case would never have got past any amateur bar-room lawyer let alone the CPS.

Munkey Boy, Audenshaw, Manchester (28/01/2008 at 16:25)

A man driving an HGV but not in control of it would be a potential murderer. Good to see an innocent man didn't get punished in this case (and sad to see he had to use so much of his own cash to defend himself too), but saying that it's right the Police pursue (and feel the public are behind them pursuing) people accused of such crimes though.

leah maynard (29/01/2008 at 03:35)

to the innocent ,
Has anybody considered how many people have been wrongly accused of traffic offences offences,but pay fines anyway.
We accept penalty points,get bans ,all
on the strength of colaborating police oficers!
The police oficers were wrong. what chance do we motorists have if we havent got 2,600 pounds to protest our innocence.? . .we take it !we pay the fines,we pay high premiums on our car insurance,because our licences arn't clean.Every time you go out in your car you run the gauntlet of it costing you money.
Accidents happen whilst you take your eyes off the road reading signs and checking your speedo every twenty yards! Has it become a criminal offence to be a 'motorist'?

outraged (01/02/2008 at 16:31)

This case was incorrectly reported, Mr Jones was not issued with a fixed penalty notice. The phone was seized for analysis purposes and Mr Jones expected to hear nothing further once the data from the phone was collected as this would of shown he had not committed the offence he was accused of. It should never of gone to court & Mr Jones offered his evidence prior to the trial in order to avoid uneccassary proceedings. The call data alone proved he was not on the phone at the time the officers accused him of being and the tachograph report in conjunction with the phone data proved that Mr Jones had only ever used his phone (at other times during the day) whilst his vehicle was not in use. This case was a total waste of time & money not to mention the upset this has caused to Mr Jones & his family.
Of course the police should do all they can to stop people from committing this serious & dangerous offence. That is not in dispute, but if I can clearly see people every day obviously & blatently ignoring this law and chatting quite visibly on mobile phones whilst driving all kinds of vehicles then how is it possible that 3 officers on seeing a hand movement which appeared to be consistant with using a mobile phone couldnt determine whether what they saw was in fact a telephone conversation or not???
My advise to all motorists would be to keep your hands on the wheel at all times even when stationary at traffic lights and the like. This way we wont appear to be using the phone when we are not and it might then be a little easier for the police to catch the true offenders.

()

Report

News