By Patrick Dewhurst
A NICOSIA man took on the police yesterday on an issue of principle by pleading not guilty to using his mobile phone while driving, rather than pay €100 euro fine just to make the case go away.
The alleged offence took place over two years ago, in September 2007, and has only now reached the courts. If the accused man is found guilty in court, he could face a €1,000 fine when he returns to court on October 10.
The man, a British Cypriot, who wished to withhold his name so as not to jeopardise his trial, told the Cyprus Mail "I was pulled over as I was driving into Paphos Gate police station to report a stolen motorbike, I’m hardly going to drive into a police station on my phone am I?"
“I have been driving since 1987 and have a clean licence.” He added.
The policewoman who pulled him over insisted he was using his phone and issued a CYP£60 fine on the spot. He denied the allegation, and invited her check his phone's call log to show he was not using it. However the policewoman declined the offer.
The man explained the possible source of a misunderstanding, but was not let off. A two-year wait then followed, before the courts addressed his case.
Throughout the last two years he has maintained that, far from speaking on his phone, he has a skin condition which causes him to scratch his head. This is what he was doing this when he was pulled over, and that his phone was in a bag.
It is possible to trace phone records to confirm no call took place.
But while it is simple to obtain outgoing call records, incoming calls require a longer and more bureaucratic process. "I will contact my phone provider, but the problem is that even this won't prove I am innocent." The policewoman could simply counter that he had dialled but failed to connect a call, or that he was listening to a stored voicemail.
In the end the case is therefore likely to come down to a citizen's word against a policewoman's.
If the above report is to be taken on face value then there is evidence here of a serious breach of human rights and several common law principles.
Article 6 of the ECHR provides the right to a fair trial. This includes the provision that this should take place within a reasonable time.
Whilst a member state may lodge a derogation from some of the ECHR's statutes (already been done by UK, France, USA and various others for cases involving terrorism and / or national security) a moving traffic violation could hardly be placed in the same league.
This used to be determined by reference to the common law principles commonly referred to as the statute of limitations. Many jurisdictions have now gone further than this and actively mandated a maximum time limit for charging and prosecutions for various classes of crime. The majority of EU states (and the UK) adhere to the premise that a summary (non imprison able) offence should be charged within 30 days and taken to trial before 6 months for minor offences. Many courts and jurisdictions reduce these limits even further to avoid being accused of causing undue stress and hardship on the accused.
Two years for a relatively minor offence (if one did in fact take place) is unacceptable and could, in itself, amount to a cruel and unusual punishment under the circumstances.
