Senior driver hit with mobile phone fine, reveals he never owned one
- Replies 56
In a world where technology is increasingly becoming a part of our daily lives, it's hard to imagine someone who has never owned or used a mobile phone.
But for 77-year-old Frank Singh, this is his reality.
Yet, in a bizarre twist of fate, Frank found himself slapped with a hefty fine for using a mobile phone while driving, despite allegedly never having owned one.
Frank's story began when he received a $362 fine from Revenue New South Wales, accusing him of a traffic offence he vehemently denied.
The evidence? Images captured by a mobile phone detection camera on the Pacific Motorway where he was holding an object in his left hand.
'I've never owned a mobile phone. I've never used a mobile phone. I thought “what a load of s**t”,' Frank said.
While Frank couldn't recall what he was holding in the pictures provided as evidence by Revenue NSW, he was adamant it wasn't a phone.
'I think it could be my wallet,' he suggested.
Ironically, Frank's friend, Kishori Breeze, had to step in to help him appeal, as the process required a mobile number and email address.
Breeze was confident that the misunderstanding would be easily resolved.
'You've got a fine for using a mobile phone while driving. You don’t have a mobile phone. Let’s just nip down to the office and get this fixed,' he said.
However, their astonishment grew when the review was rejected.
'He received a letter to say, yeah, we understand that you say that you don’t have a phone, but please go ahead and pay the fine anyway,' Breeze recounted.
'When Frank tried to say, “I don’t have a mobile phone, and I’ve never”…(the Byron Bay Magistrate) butt in and she said, “You do own a mobile phone.”'
Lawyer Richard Mitry explained that the typical attitude of innocence until proven guilty isn't always applied when it comes to traffic offences.
'It’s actually the other way around with most traffic offences,' Mitry said.
'So, in this case, you’ve assumed that you’ve done the wrong thing based on the fact that a camera snapped you, and the camera thought you were doing the wrong thing.'
In a surprising turn of events, Frank's fine was later cancelled without explanation, and he is no longer required to appear in court, according to A Current Affair.
Have you or someone you know ever been wrongly accused of a traffic offence? Share your stories in the comments below.
But for 77-year-old Frank Singh, this is his reality.
Yet, in a bizarre twist of fate, Frank found himself slapped with a hefty fine for using a mobile phone while driving, despite allegedly never having owned one.
Frank's story began when he received a $362 fine from Revenue New South Wales, accusing him of a traffic offence he vehemently denied.
The evidence? Images captured by a mobile phone detection camera on the Pacific Motorway where he was holding an object in his left hand.
A senior driver received a $362 mobile phone use while driving fine, but claimed he never owned nor used a mobile phone. Image source: A Current Affair, Frank Singh.
'I've never owned a mobile phone. I've never used a mobile phone. I thought “what a load of s**t”,' Frank said.
While Frank couldn't recall what he was holding in the pictures provided as evidence by Revenue NSW, he was adamant it wasn't a phone.
'I think it could be my wallet,' he suggested.
Ironically, Frank's friend, Kishori Breeze, had to step in to help him appeal, as the process required a mobile number and email address.
Breeze was confident that the misunderstanding would be easily resolved.
'You've got a fine for using a mobile phone while driving. You don’t have a mobile phone. Let’s just nip down to the office and get this fixed,' he said.
However, their astonishment grew when the review was rejected.
'He received a letter to say, yeah, we understand that you say that you don’t have a phone, but please go ahead and pay the fine anyway,' Breeze recounted.
'When Frank tried to say, “I don’t have a mobile phone, and I’ve never”…(the Byron Bay Magistrate) butt in and she said, “You do own a mobile phone.”'
Lawyer Richard Mitry explained that the typical attitude of innocence until proven guilty isn't always applied when it comes to traffic offences.
'It’s actually the other way around with most traffic offences,' Mitry said.
'So, in this case, you’ve assumed that you’ve done the wrong thing based on the fact that a camera snapped you, and the camera thought you were doing the wrong thing.'
In a surprising turn of events, Frank's fine was later cancelled without explanation, and he is no longer required to appear in court, according to A Current Affair.
.png){kind=icon}
