Court rules on mobile phone use while driving

Introduction

The High Court recently delivered a significant judgment on the interpretation of mobile phone use regulations while driving. The case, The King (on the application of Andrew Olins) vs Lavender Hill Magistrates' Court, centred on the application of Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended, and its implications for drivers using Bluetooth technology.

Background

The case arose after Andrew Olins was convicted by the Lavender Hill Magistrates' Court for holding a mobile phone while driving, contrary to Regulation 110. Olins was using a Bluetooth connection to make a call and claimed he only touched the phone to prevent it from slipping off the passenger seat. The magistrates refused to state a case, deeming the request frivolous, leading Olins to seek judicial review.

Legal Issues

The primary legal issue was whether Olins' actions constituted 'using' a mobile phone under Regulation 110. The regulation prohibits driving while using a hand-held mobile device. The court examined whether holding a phone to prevent it from falling constitutes 'use' and whether Bluetooth connectivity affects this interpretation.

Arguments

Olins argued that his actions did not amount to 'using' the phone as defined by the regulation, as he was not interacting with the device to make or receive the call. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), however, maintained that the device was being used for a call, and holding it constituted an offence.

Judgment

Mr Justice Freedman ruled that Olins' actions fell within the scope of 'using' a mobile phone. The court held that the regulation covers any instance where a phone is held while being used for communication, regardless of whether the interaction is direct or via Bluetooth. The judgment emphasised that the regulation aims to prevent distractions caused by holding a phone while driving.

Special Reasons

The court also considered whether there were special reasons not to impose the usual penalties. While the magistrates found mitigation in Olins' instinctive action to catch the phone, they did not deem it a special reason in law. The High Court found that the magistrates failed to adequately explain their reasoning, leading to a remittance for reconsideration of special reasons.

Implications

This ruling clarifies the interpretation of 'using' a mobile phone under Regulation 110, confirming that holding a phone during a call, even via Bluetooth, constitutes an offence. The decision underscores the importance of hands-free compliance to avoid penalties.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision highlights the stringent application of mobile phone use regulations and the need for drivers to ensure compliance with hands-free laws. The case has been remitted to the magistrates for further consideration of special reasons, offering a potential avenue for mitigation in similar cases.

Learn More

For more information on road traffic offences and mobile phone use, see BeCivil's guide to UK Road Traffic Law.