Using a hand held mobile phone as a camera whilst driving
Discussion
UKHC to decide this case next week.
D was driving whilst using his hand-held mobile phone to film a road traffic accident. Police prosecutor charged him with using a mobile phone whilst driving. Convicted after trial in the Magistrates' Court. Appeal allowed in the Crown Court. CPS has taken the case to the Divisional Court.
Place your bets on the outcome.
D was driving whilst using his hand-held mobile phone to film a road traffic accident. Police prosecutor charged him with using a mobile phone whilst driving. Convicted after trial in the Magistrates' Court. Appeal allowed in the Crown Court. CPS has taken the case to the Divisional Court.
Place your bets on the outcome.
Edited by agtlaw on Tuesday 16th April 09:13
Didn’t a celebrity/comedian avoid conviction because they were using the phone to record dictation/notes/ideas, therefore not using it as two way communication? If so, wouldn’t it be the same for using the camera bit of the phone? Or have I got all that comoletely wrong and using any bit of something being capable of two way communication counts?
Yes, I should, as a serving Police Officer, probably know all the minutiae or mobile phone use, but as a detective in CID, it’s not actually something we deal with. The mobile phone offence was brought in after I’d finished on traffic, so it was never an issue.
Yes, I should, as a serving Police Officer, probably know all the minutiae or mobile phone use, but as a detective in CID, it’s not actually something we deal with. The mobile phone offence was brought in after I’d finished on traffic, so it was never an issue.
Purity14 said:
Beaten to it, this was what I think I was thinking of. agtlaw said:
Dibble said:
Beaten to it, this was what I think I was thinking of.
The outcome of another case decided in the magistrates' court is not in the least bit relevant to a case before the Divisional Court.agtlaw said:
Dibble said:
Beaten to it, this was what I think I was thinking of.
The outcome of another case decided in the magistrates' court is not in the least bit relevant to a case before the Divisional Court.To turn your op round, what do you think will happen?
agtlaw said:
It's a prosecution appeal.
D's case is likely to be that the relevant legislation requires the 'use' to be for an 'interactive communication purpose.'
That seems fairly clear to me, using the camera alone is definitely not that.D's case is likely to be that the relevant legislation requires the 'use' to be for an 'interactive communication purpose.'
Would almost be amusing if there's a distinction between holding a mobile phone up for the camera and it saving video to local disk vs live streaming to social media. What a mess.
If it is illegal then would using pure camera also be illegal? In which case is this https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/11/5/... a phone or a camera?
agtlaw said:
La Liga said:
What's the basis of D's appeal?
It's a prosecution appeal.D's case is likely to be that the relevant legislation requires the 'use' to be for an 'interactive communication purpose.'
does the device actually need to be used at that point for interactive communication?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regu...
appears to be the relevant legislation
110(1)(b) - a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
110(4) - (4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
110(6)(c) “interactive communication function” includes the following:
(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
all of that would seem to suggest that you can't use a device defined as one which performs an interactive communication function being any part of 110(6)(c) - and (iv) of that would cover most phones - so by the wording there it seems to ban the handheld use of a phone - because it can and does provide access to the internet - not because the user is actually on the internet... i.e. the capability of the device, not its use...
so unless the phone is e.g. on aeroplane mode with all communication switched off then any use of the device should be illegal as it is basically a device performing that function - and it is continually connected to the internet...
agtlaw said:
La Liga said:
What's the basis of D's appeal?
It's a prosecution appeal.D's case is likely to be that the relevant legislation requires the 'use' to be for an 'interactive communication purpose.'
ked. akirk said:
speaking from the perspective of no technical / legal knowledge...
does the device actually need to be used at that point for interactive communication?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regu...
appears to be the relevant legislation
110(1)(b) - a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
110(4) - (4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
110(6)(c) “interactive communication function” includes the following:
(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
all of that would seem to suggest that you can't use a device defined as one which performs an interactive communication function being any part of 110(6)(c) - and (iv) of that would cover most phones - so by the wording there it seems to ban the handheld use of a phone - because it can and does provide access to the internet - not because the user is actually on the internet... i.e. the capability of the device, not its use...
so unless the phone is e.g. on aeroplane mode with all communication switched off then any use of the device should be illegal as it is basically a device performing that function - and it is continually connected to the internet...
I agree, all except the last part. Even in airplane mode, it doesnt change the the function of the device.does the device actually need to be used at that point for interactive communication?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regu...
appears to be the relevant legislation
110(1)(b) - a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
110(4) - (4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
110(6)(c) “interactive communication function” includes the following:
(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
all of that would seem to suggest that you can't use a device defined as one which performs an interactive communication function being any part of 110(6)(c) - and (iv) of that would cover most phones - so by the wording there it seems to ban the handheld use of a phone - because it can and does provide access to the internet - not because the user is actually on the internet... i.e. the capability of the device, not its use...
so unless the phone is e.g. on aeroplane mode with all communication switched off then any use of the device should be illegal as it is basically a device performing that function - and it is continually connected to the internet...
Otherwise I could bang it in airplane mode and trundle down the motorway at 70mph trying to beat my high score on Candy Crush.
Edited by un1corn on Tuesday 2nd April 15:55
akirk said:
agtlaw said:
La Liga said:
What's the basis of D's appeal?
It's a prosecution appeal.D's case is likely to be that the relevant legislation requires the 'use' to be for an 'interactive communication purpose.'
does the device actually need to be used at that point for interactive communication?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regu...
appears to be the relevant legislation
110(1)(b) - a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
110(4) - (4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
110(6)(c) “interactive communication function” includes the following:
(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
all of that would seem to suggest that you can't use a device defined as one which performs an interactive communication function being any part of 110(6)(c) - and (iv) of that would cover most phones - so by the wording there it seems to ban the handheld use of a phone - because it can and does provide access to the internet - not because the user is actually on the internet... i.e. the capability of the device, not its use...
so unless the phone is e.g. on aeroplane mode with all communication switched off then any use of the device should be illegal as it is basically a device performing that function - and it is continually connected to the internet...
The Law said:
110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
(2) No person shall cause or permit any other person to drive a motor vehicle on a road while that other person is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
(3) No person shall supervise a holder of a provisional licence if the person supervising is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4),
Regulation 110 outlaws the use of 2 devices:(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
(2) No person shall cause or permit any other person to drive a motor vehicle on a road while that other person is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
(3) No person shall supervise a holder of a provisional licence if the person supervising is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4),
1. A HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONE, as well as
2. A hand-held device as specified in paragraph (4), i.e. A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data...so NOT A HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONE
Paragraph (4) doesn't refer to A HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONE
If you use A HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONE while driving you commit the offence. "USE" is not defined so any USE qualifies for the offence at (1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(a).
By the way, if you use a device specified in (4), i.e. NOT A HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONE you commit the offence at (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b). This would be a device like a palm PC, an iPod Touch, a mini-iPad etc.
768 said:
That makes it sound like a fitbit would be in contravention. Smart watch?
Do you hold it in your hand and does it perform an interactive communication function? i.e. does it fit the description in paragraph (4)?I wear mine on my wrist.
The Law said:
(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff