Lampard escapes prosecution.

[Cycleops]

He was filmed by cycling safety campaigner Mike Van ERP (CyclingMikey) driving whilst holding a phone and a cup of coffee.
He hired Mr Loophole and Crown prosecution service now say there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and charges have now been dropped.
The evidence looks solid enough. What's going on here?
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...e-against-ex-player-driving-phone-car-dropped

 

[winjim]

Mikey himself seems to accept that the evidence was poor so why do you say it looks solid?

 

[Cycleops]

I would say this is pretty solid, wouldn't you?
I haven't read the full details.

 

[GilesM]

From what Mr Loophole said, it was quite clear a conviction was unlikely, and if FL had been convicted, he has the cash to appeal it, and the CPS didn't want to risk a precedent being set in a higher court.

 

[GilesM]

I would say this is pretty solid, wouldn't you?
I haven't read the full details.

Polite suggestion, read the full details.

 

[DaveReading]

Mr Lampard may well have learned his lesson from this episode, in which case Mikey's efforts will not have been entirely in vain.

 

[matticus]

Polite suggestion, read the full details.

OK. I've read the link. All I find is this:

A CPS spokesperson said: “After examining a file of evidence submitted by the Metropolitan police service, we concluded, in accordance with our legal test, there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.”

Not very revealing, is it?

 

[mustang1]

Side note:
Aha, they at least waited until the 4th paragraph before mentioning the car. Usually it's listed within the title so there's progress. Still no comment about which bike or camera was being used (which is good as all that is irrelevant anyway).

 

[Bonefish Blues]

OK. I've read the link. All I find is this:


Not very revealing, is it?

The content of the Guardian article makes it very clear that MvE has had feedback, some of which detail he shares.

 

[GilesM]

OK. I've read the link. All I find is this:


Not very revealing, is it?

A few more details in other places:

Mr Freeman told The Telegraph that he had absolved his client by highlighting the wording of the legislation, which the Government plans to tighten, stating that an offence is committed only if a phone is used for an “interactive purpose” when driving.
This could include making a call, sending a text or browsing the internet, but not using the phone to perform a task such as recording a voice note.
He had deployed a similar argument in 2009 for another celebrity client, the comedian Jimmy Carr, whom he argued was simply using his iPhone to dictate an idea for a joke while driving.
The CPS decided to drop the case after being served with the defence statement earlier this month.

Remember, as in this case, most of Freeman's customers are very wealthy, they can afford to appeal, the CPS know this and do not want to risk a dangerous precedent being set in a higher court. I have no doubt Freeman plays on this.

 

[GilesM]

Mr Lampard may well have learned his lesson from this episode, in which case Mikey's efforts will not have been entirely in vain.

Not really, FL and everybody else now knows that a video of you holding a phone is not sufficient for a conviction.

 

[steveindenmark]

But FL did not get away scot free. Can you imagine what Mr Loopholes fees are? I know Frank can afford it. But nobody likes giving money away.

 

[Cycleops]

But FL did not get away scot free. Can you imagine what Mr Loopholes fees are? I know Frank can afford it. But nobody likes giving money away.

Lampard doesn't seem too worried about giving money away to Mr Loophole because if he accumulates more points he may loose his license and that's something all his money can't buy back.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Looks like the Police don't seem to know the law. Imagine the number of people who paid up even though their phones were locked or doing something that is not covered by the Act.

 

[KnittyNorah]

On a brief scan of the evidence available, I think the CPS made the correct and necessary decision, even if regrettable. Precedent can be a very dangerous thing, especially when high-profile combines with immense wealth and popularity, and an ongoing trial with all its appeals and publicity could result in horrible complications surrounding the new legislation coming in at the end of the month. It's going to be bad enough with the number of people who have no idea about the changes ...