Driver fined for clutching apple

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40756000/jpg/_40756069_mccaffrey203.jpg Driver Sarah McCaffery was fined for holding an apple

A woman who held an apple while driving a car around a corner has been fined £60 and ordered to pay £100 costs.

Sarah McCaffery was pulled over in December 2003 by police who mistakenly thought she was on her mobile phone.

They spotted the fruit and issued her with a £30 ticket saying she was not in proper control of her Ford Ka.

The 23-year-old of Blackpool Parade, Hebburn, appealed, but was convicted by magistrates on Monday. Her solicitor said the case was "nonsensical."



Geoffrey Forrester, defending, also criticised Northumbria Police and the Crown Prosecution Service for ordering aerial photographs for the trial, which lasted just two-and-a-half hours at South Tyneside Magistrates' Court

'Perfect' manoeuvre

But on Monday the court ruled McCaffery was not in proper control of her car when she negotiated a left hand turn with the apple in her right hand.

Mr Forrester said his client carried out the manoeuvre into the road "perfectly".

He said: "Nothing illustrates the nonsense of this case more than the resources that have been thrown at it."

But chairman of the bench, Ken Buck, said: "We accept that there are times when you can drive with one hand, but, in holding an apple while negotiating a left hand turn, we consider you not to have been in full control."

Chris Kay, prosecuting, said the cost of the case, not including the aerial photographs and video, was £425. A Northumbria Police spokesman said: "We were obliged to gather all appropriate evidence to present our case. "Costs do not have a bearing on any decision to prosecute."


Was this worth the costs involved? I admit to driving while changing radio channels, am I a danger?

Well, as far as has the law gone mad goes, no, I don't think so - if you are eating or drinking while you are driving you are not in proper contol of your car, much as if you are holding a phone in your hand.

As far as was the court case worth the costs, I suppose you would have to ask that about any court case, not just this one. But if the costs really were the £425 you quoted here, I think it was quite cheap and so yes, worth the costs.

The costs for the prosecution came to £10,000, just been on the TV, I didn't realise it was not stated above.

I admit to driving while changing radio channels, am I a danger?
[/size]

The thing is - if you look down while you're fiddling with the dials - potentially you are a danger.

I remember a case a few years ago where a car driver was reaching across for some sweets, they might have been in the glove compartment or on the passenger dashboard, he lost control of the car and someone was killed.

In the apple case, I'd be interested to know what the offence was, was it simply that she was driving erratically, or is it an offence to have food or drink in one hand when you are driving even if you are keeping the car on an even course.

I think it's all about "due care and attention".

A car is a lethal weapon, cars kill people, regularly. Actually, scratch that, cars don't kill people, drivers kill people - often drivers who weren't using due care and attention. To me, drving a car without paying full attention is exactly the same as playing with a loaded gun.

It amazes me how many people leave all sense of danger behind them once they sit behind the wheel of a comfortable car, they feel invincible, more powerful, ready to fight any comers, and feel that the law doesn't apply to them as somehow they're "different" to everyone else. Also that mentality that they will never be involved in an accident as they've never been involved in one yet.

Yes, eating an apple is a trivial thing, but then how much effort would it have taken the driver to finish her apple before she set off on her journey, or to wait until she's got wherever she was going?

Apparently she was driving perfectly, but was spotted with an apple in her hand - she had committed no driving offence. The law states it was no different to her holding a mobile phone, weather it was in use or not!

I have had days where I have had to drive over 400 miles, happened recently when I also had a bad cough, and had a water bottle by me to sip at through the journey, (One of those with the drinking cap on) along with cough tablets. You can't forever be pulling over on a motorway or country road, that in itself is an offence, and hacking away is a danger - so where are the limits put? None of us are perfect, and we don't all sit like robots at the wheel.

BTW, I drive an automatic, so I never, or seldom have to worry about gear change. They will be having you for that next - not having both hands on the wheel at all times! :huh:

Oh and I forgot this bit :bye: :

As to costs, that's a whole different argument, unless we want to start to develop some some of rating system for crimes. The fact that she was driving dangerously meant she could have killed someone, it's almost irrelevant whether or not she got lucky and didn't.

Quote from post #1

Mr Forrester said his client carried out the manoeuvre into the road "perfectly".

Mr Forrester said his client carried out the manoeuvre into the road "perfectly".


Well he would do really, wouldn't he, being her defence lawyer :)

Yes, regarding the costs - she could have just stumped up the £30 fine, learnt her lesson, and that would have been it. But no, she engages a defence team and takes it to court. As a result, the police have to respond in court by providing evidence, at a further cost. I find it then a bit rich when after losing the case, and trousering their hefty fees, her defence team then blame the police for wasting all that money.

I never, or seldom have to worry about gear change. They will be having you for that next - not having both hands on the wheel at all times!

Now you're being daft!

Now you're being daft! {Survivorfan}

I know, I'm having a bad hair day, got a rotten head cold, and am being horribly picky about anything just for the hell of it! Sorry! :blush: Roll on tomorrow -I may even have a :) face then!

Yes, regarding the costs - she could have just stumped up the £30 fine, learnt her lesson, and that would have been it. But no, she engages a defence team and takes it to court. As a result, the police have to respond in court by providing evidence, at a further cost. I find it then a bit rich when after losing the case, and trousering their hefty fees, her defence team then blame the police for wasting all that money
I totally agree with this, if the woman had paid her fine instead of appealing again and again then the costs would never have mounted up. The police can't let people off just because they appeal and the costs might mount. I think it would have been fairer (and more of a deterrent) if the woman had been forced to pay costs as well.

Geoffrey Forrester, defending, also criticised Northumbria Police and the Crown Prosecution Service for ordering aerial photographs for the trial, which lasted just two-and-a-half hours at South Tyneside Magistrates' Court


This woman should have just taken her punishment, ahem like a man!! And paid the fine - if her solicitor had been worth his salt - he could have advised her that not so long ago [and I can't remember what where or when] but another driver was fined for eating a pasty or sandwich, and it went to trial and he also lost.

But I do however, question Northumbria Police needing arial photographs??? :unsure: I cannot see how these would make the slightest difference to whether or not someone was eating an apple at the wheel of her car. I can appreciate if there was a fatal or serious driving offence - but eating an apple??

This woman should have just taken her punishment, ahem like a man!! And paid the fine - if her solicitor had been worth his salt - he could have advised her that not so long ago [and I can't remember what where or when] but another driver was fined for eating a pasty or sandwich, and it went to trial and he also lost.


Totally agree, now I suppose that she will now have to pay court costs etc, which really is her own fault. She was in the wrong, it is only £30 and she should have paid up.

We bought a new car several years ago from an auction, we picked it up on Friday night and had arranged insurance etc for it. Unfortunately it didn't have an up to date road tax. We got the insurance certificate through on the Saturday morning, and got the road tax that morning. However when we went to put it on the car, we had a ticket as a result of having no road tax. As part of our home insurance there was a legal help-line, we phoned them, their answer was quite simply to pay the fine, take the hit and that if it went to court we would probably lose and then have to pay court cost etc.

I do think it is very unfortunate that the police had to spend time at court, and that the costs were so high but the blame has to be on the girl and more ultimately the defence team. Silly, stupid claims such as this should be thrown out of court immediately.

Also the case itself probably didn't last 2 and half hours, I have been to court and most of time was actually sitting around waiting until your case was called. The winner out of all of this will be the lawyer as he will have charged a hefty amount for his time.

Let this be a lesson to others.

I didn't realise it was illegal to eat and drive. I dont really do it anyway, but what about smoking? Now that is something loads of people do, I think that is extremely dangerous, you cannot drop it or put it down so you have to manouver everything to try keep hold of your smoke. Your concentration is split between making sure you don't ash in your car or drop your smoke, taking drags of your smoke and then driving.

I didn't realise it was illegal to eat and drive. I dont really do it anyway, but what about smoking? Now that is something loads of people do, I think that is extremely dangerous, you cannot drop it or put it down so you have to manouver everything to try keep hold of your smoke. Your concentration is split between making sure you don't ash in your car or drop your smoke, taking drags of your smoke and then driving.

Also the thing with smoking as when you take your first draw, you get a bit of high, is that right? I'll be perfectly honest here one of the biggest distractions when I am driving are the children. Katie is constantly asking questions or teasing Abbie causing her to sqeal. It is not the first time I have to indicate that I am pulling over just to ask them please to stop. As Floopy says, it is all about driving with due care and attention and let's face it we have probably all been guilty of doing one thing or another and I have seen some scary sights myself - like the woman putting on her make-up whilst driving, using the mirror on the windscreen, the guy pouring himself a coffee or tea from his flask. The scariest ones for me is when I see kids jumping around in the back seat, not fastened in. My mouth goes dry every time I see that.

I agree in principle with what people are saying. This woman's should have paid up to save the time and costs involved. However, I can imagine she must have been mighty peed off when she was pulled over by the police for eating an apple.

I should think her apple eating was not as nearly as distracting as Bella's children (no offence), and a large number of people seem to drive with just one hand on the steering wheel regardless of whether they have anything in the other hand or not. I'm guilty of doing it too sometimes though I tend not to have something in my hand because I don't like that feeling of being out of control should something suddenly occur.

Another cause of accidents is rubber necking while passing a previous accident, yet nobody seems to take any notice of that.

I suppose in her case being on a roundabout made it worse, you can't really both steer a tight curve and signal one-handed.

Apparently she was driving perfectly
*cough*

[brag mode]I have done an advanced driving course with the Institute of Advanced Motorists. It is an eye opener, and well worth the £75 or so it costs. Having done that course, I think it pretty unlikely that anyone with less driving training than an advanced police instructor could legitimately claim to be driving "perfectly".[/brag mode]

These cases get well publicised and hyped, and the headlines are wonderful, aren't they? "Woman gets fined for eating an apple." Oh, the outrage! Oh, the dastardly, dictatorial legal system!

There is no offence "driving in possession of an apple", "driving whilst eating toast" or "driving whilst smoking". The offence here was "driving without due care and attention". In order to secure a conviction, the police would have had to produce MORE evidence than simply the presence of an apple. Look at it logically: what first attracted the attention of the police? Was it a small green object they noticed, or, more likely, was it a large lump of metal being driven erratically?

When you get into two tonnes of metal, and hurl it about the place at potentially dangerous speeds, you have a responsibility to do as much as reasonably possible to ensure your safety and the safety of other drivers. When you drive a car, you are not eating an apple. You are not smoking a cigarette. You are not having a conversation on your mobile phone. You are driving a car.

We are lulled into a false sense of security when we do these things and nothing bad happens. The fact is that fortunately, even if YOU are driving like a pillock, hopefully the other drivers have their wits about them and will make allowances for your carelessness. This does not excuse the carelessness, and the fact that you didn't have an accident is not something to brag about - it is something to be relieved about. Don't drive like a pillock next time.

The fact that the woman in this case was attempting to eat an apple whilst turning a corner demonstrates clearly her blasé attitude towards driving. No, she was not driving perfectly. If she had been driving perfectly, she would have had two hands on the steering wheel. With two hands on the wheel, you are much more able to respond to sudden changes in the direction of the wheel, caused for example by hitting an irregularity in the road surface.

This woman should have stopped bleating about it and gone on an advanced driving course, or a Pass Plus, or something like that. I can't believe that for the sake of all this money, at her expense and the tax payer's expense, she felt that she had to make a point.

People hate being told they're in the wrong, especially in the area of driving, it seems. Very immature really. The truth is that very few of us are good drivers. Years of getting away with lapses of attention, being distracted, etc, erode the skills that initially enabled us to pass a fairly rigorous test.

Which of you would claim, several years after taking a driving test, that you could still pass it today? If this lady's driving was below the standard of an ordinary test (never mind an advanced test), then to claim it was "perfect" is just ever so faintly ridiculous.

Rant rant.

Well said Blinky - I expect nothing less.

The woman was apparently pulled over because the police officers thought she was using a mobile phone.

Did anyone see the news this morning about the chap who stopped to ask a wpc directions, and was issued with a $30 for having his music on to loud??? It was Riverdance!! I did supress a little giggle, when I saw his state of the art souped up posh car - and it was Riverdance!!! :laugh:

Surely if she lost then the 10 grand should be paid by her? To be honest, its the amount that it has cost us taxpayers that has infuriated me! The stupid woman!!!! No one is above the law FFS!

No-one is above the law? lmfao ! let your dog kill one of your mother's dogs, then attack some kids in a park, your dog will be taken away and smuffdicated....unless you are royalty of course in which case you will be given a jolly good telling off. Be an MP and you can park your car where you like/drive it as fast as you like/hell...drive it ****ed as a rat if you like, it will be covered up, you'll get let off. Oh even better, be an 'illegal' immigrant... have NO tax, NO insurance, don't even own the car, get piddled AND run over a kid ... no fine, no nothing coz you are lost in the system and have had such a hard life (ongoing thing in our local paper) ... BUT eat an apple while driving a fully taxed, insured, licensed motor and YOU are worse than friggin Hitler.

Nothing left for the government to tax/fine, so hey BRILLIANT idea, let's fine the law-abiding citizens ... there's feckin LOADS of em ... Loads a money

I think you're losing a little bit of perspective here, Snowdrop. The fine was £30!

The police like booking motorists so much because they are an easy target and they can milk some extra revenue out of them, and get themselves some brownie points from the anti-car establishment.

Why should she have "paid up" straight away? The law allows anyone who doesn't think they are guilty to argue their case in court. In fact most of the costs of this silly case - which in the past would have resulted in no more than a friendly ticking off from a police officer - were racked up by the police and the CPS both determined - at all costs - to make sure this woman was dragged through court.

I haven't yet seen anyone arrested for smoking while driving - a much more dangerous practice - or any car manufacturers dragged before the courts for inciting people to commit a motoring offence by installing cigarette lighters.

The police a duty to pursue truly dangerous drivers. And arrest them. And throw the book at them if need be. But it's all about common sense and proportion.

I've seen repeat offender shoplifters let off because it "wasn't in the public interest" to prosecute them (ie the value of what they stole did not justify the cost of getting them into court - despite the fact that they were caught on video stealing bang to rights)

Was this apple case really the best use of public funds?

I think the plod need to do a rethink on exactly how and where they direct their resources. Let's see a few more scummy, scroaty criminals arrested eh? If that's not asking too much....

In fact most of the costs of this silly case - which in the past would have resulted in no more than a friendly ticking off from a police officer - were racked up by the police and the CPS both determined - at all costs - to make sure this woman was dragged through court.

In the past perhaps, but we no longer live in the age of bobbies on the beat fining cyclists for having the wrong size rear reflector, and giving friendly waves to little Miss Marples types poodling through the village at 10mph in their Morris Minors. Nowadays we have drivers at the wheel of their one-ton-0-60-in-6- seconds killing machines, where juggling with an apple at the steering wheel on a roundabout is an accident waiting to happen.

And Norm - were the police really determined to drag this through the court at all costs? - I was under the impression she had simply been fined in the first instance?

Nowadays we have drivers at the wheel of their one-ton-0-60-in-6- seconds killing machines, where juggling with an apple at the steering wheel on a roundabout is an accident waiting to happen.

Except there wasn't an accident was there? We can't go back to the days of horse and carts - which the anti car lobby would love - but holding an apple..and not causing an accident...is hardly worthy of a ten thousand pound investigation.

Like I said, it's all a matter of proportion and I'd have liked to see that ten grand spend on persecuting real criminals for a change - ie scumbags who rob, burgle, commit acts of violence, and generally make life a misery for the rest of us.

Ok Norm. But if I see a rock-jawed man in a santa hat driving his Saab 93 at speed through Haslemere while eating a curried egg I'll be straight on the phone to Inspector Knacker.

Okay, I have a plan (Balders eat yer heart out). We all get drunk, buy a bag of fruit, arm our ears with mobile phones and go out for a drive, oh smoke and fag or better still a joint, have some nagging kids in the back seat, also smoking, eating, using phones BUT NO seat belts, an untuned radio, DEFINATELY no tax, licence or insurance ... then get done for it, threatened with a bit of chokey, pay up , chancellor quids in. Or of course we could go out on mass, commit some real crime and get let off. Jubbly.

THEN the goalers could take pictures of us being tortured, we could sue for loads o'dosh, good ole tax payer gets shafted again. wooo hooo.

mmm think I'm getting out of perspective again

has the law gone mad? YES http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_28.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm22755GB) fecking hundred quid for going round a car that was turning right fecking bus lane

Don't worry, Cockney, 'cause Inspector Knacker will be only too pleased to let off yet another scummy burglar (too much like hard work to chase them onto the estates and then actually find them, gather evidence and prosecute) far easier to sit in a nice warm patrol car pointing a camera at motorists.

I'm with Norms on this. The Met don't even bother to come out if you're burgled any more, unless the burgular is still on the scene

Having worked closely with them on many occasions, I can safely say it's because the whole darn place is filled with jumped up halfwits who wouldn't know how to catch a proper criminal if he jumped up and bit them on the bum.

I think the police do get a hard time - they can't do right for doing wrong. It is the justice system that puts criminals behind bars........or not! It is not up to the police to let them off, blame Judge whoever and the justice system for that!! They can bring the scumbag to court but in most cases it is their lawyers who will fight to get them off, and usually there has been a "blip" in the papers so they walk off scot-free! It is those hotshot lawyers who have blood on their hands, they take a sh*tload of money to help get these criminals off when they know full well they are guilty. There is so much red tape, forms to fill in, etc with the police today it is little wonder there is so much crime on the streets.

Back to point of the girl on the apple - I still think the police were right to fine her. She was not in control of the car and therefore was wrong. She will know not to do it again and since the case has made the newsheadlines, it will maybe make other people think twice before they reach out for an apple, sweets, mobile phone etc.

I'm with Norms on this. The Met don't even bother to come out if you're burgled any more, unless the burgular is still on the scene



I think this is a different issue from not being in proper control of a car though.

When I worked at the leisure centre a member of staff was assorted by three men and it took the police three hours to turn up
when I phoned the station to complain the inspector said we are short staffed and we work on a most urgent calls first basis

So how come they have time to sit outside the pub car park and wait for someone who looks drunk to get in to there car so they can nick them

Or sit in a lay-by and wait for someone to drive past to fast

We have had three break-ins in our road in the last month and last week some bast*rd stole my lawnmower out of my shad

What I would like to know is would it happen if there where more police walking the beat than sitting outside the pub eating kebabs waiting for some pore bloke who had three pints instead of two ect

I can't wait to get there pathetic letter saying we are sorry to here you have been a victim of crime

I don't want your sympathy do something about you lazy bast*rds http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_28.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm22755GB)

When I worked at the leisure centre a member of staff was assorted by three men and it took the police three hours to turn up

Was one of them called Bertie by any chance?!

snigger :ninja:

Was one of them called Bertie by any chance?!
Oh lapse in concentration there didn't like my post about god then



Drop dead Floopy

Mwaha :devil:


Were the leisure centre security cameras not able to pick up the offender? Ah no, that'll be because you had them all positioned on your car, didn't you?

Are car dear

Our car darling

Anyway you're :offtopic:

What are you a copper?

Oh lapse in concentration there didn't like my post about god then



Not at all, I liked it! :)

The Police are now governed by silly laws and the criminals know exactly how to use it. If only these morons would use their brains to do something more constructive instead of robbing old ladies or joyriding. btw - that's the criminals I am talking about not the police!

Bring back the short sharp shock that’s what I say

Boot camp, that would sort the men from the boys!! I find it unbelievable that when a criminal is sentenced to say 10 years, it is always mentioned that he will be out in 6 or 7 for good behaviour!!! What is the point in giving him 10 years then?!! If you have killed someone I don't think you should ever be allowed out. I cannot be bothered with all the goody-two shoes and the human rights activists.

Whilst people may be fed up that certain crimes do not appear to be investigated appropriately, you have to look at the untenable position of the police. They constantly have limited resources, and to be fair to the officers doing the job, most of them are as frustrated as the rest of us that they cannot investigate everything.

The thing is that someone somewhere in government has to weigh up costs, risks, deaths, and decide how best to deploy police resources. If you don't agree with these political decisions then might I suggest you could expend your energy a little more productively than ranting at the police? Their targets are dictated by politicians. To the politicians you should complain. Or vote for someone else next time...

The fact remains that inattention during driving is a major cause of fatal accidents. This lady who drove whilst eating an apple, and who was fortunate enough not to cause an accident fatal or otherwise, will no doubt think twice about driving carelessly in future. Who is to say what potential deaths have been averted by this reinforcement of the need for care whilst driving? The beneficial effects of pursuing such a prosecution cannot easily be measured. But I for one would rather be burgled than killed by an apple-eating motorist.

NB The tone of my above post is due to the fact that I have several friends in the police force who find the job very frustrating, but who nevertheless believe in trying to make a difference. The fact that they are criticised from hell to Highgate doesn't make the job any more rewarding for them, and yet they still do it. We should be grateful.

Funny, isn't it, how just before a general election, our liberal minded government - normally such friends of criminals (who are all of course misunderstood victims of we nasty honest folk because we dare to tempt them by owning things they want to steal) - now start to issue guidelines about how we can take action against burglars who enter our homes...ie use reasonable force...which has always been the case.

But try arguing that one in court when you are up against a phalanx of legal aid funded barristers and a liberal judge who want to give you some porridge for hitting the poor, crowbar-wielding, hooded rat-boy over the head with a rolled up newspaper.

Whilst people may be fed up that certain crimes do not appear to be investigated appropriately, you have to look at the untenable position of the police. They constantly have limited resources, and to be fair to the officers doing the job, most of them are as frustrated as the rest of us that they cannot investigate everything.

The fact that they are criticised from hell to Highgate doesn't make the job any more rewarding for them, and yet they still do it. We should be grateful.
Blink I wholeheartedly support your comments. Whilst I was a serving officer, my force went through a major re-shuffle/change - this was all down to Government policies forced upon us.

In the past we were able to investigate ALL crimes [regardless of brevity], in the past we had some sort of subjective overview of traffic offences, in the past it was easier to be the sort of police officer that the GBP wanted. Since the inception of laws/rules/regulations/targets/beat crimes/computer dealt crimes etc - life for a copper is very tied, moral is rock bottom and criminals rule the roost. The justice system is unsupportive and I wonder sometimes why I ever bothered and why they all still do?? [most of my mates are still police officers, one is an Asst Ch Const - and he feels the same too].

*Lifts hem, smartly steps down from soap box and retires for a stiff brandy!*