The conclusion is that the offence is not committed unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt (by the Prosecution) that the phone was being used for an ‘interactive telecommunication function’ at the time of the alleged offence.
We're all doomed .
The conclusion is that the offence is not committed unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt (by the Prosecution) that the phone was being used for an ‘interactive telecommunication function’ at the time of the alleged offence.
gaz wrote:https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/high-court-clarifies-law-on-mobile-phone-usage/The conclusion is that the offence is not committed unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt (by the Prosecution) that the phone was being used for an ‘interactive telecommunication function’ at the time of the alleged offence.
We're all doomed .
Bonefishblues wrote:The commentary is particularly clear, I thought?
Neither loophole nor poor drafting, but rubbish lawmaking (see also facial recognition debates we've been having).
I suspect we're seeing some downsides of our Representatives' typical demographic here.
Mike Sales wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:The commentary is particularly clear, I thought?
Neither loophole nor poor drafting, but rubbish lawmaking (see also facial recognition debates we've been having).
I suspect we're seeing some downsides of our Representatives' typical demographic here.
I'd call that poor drafting, but I see your distinction.
Mike Sales wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:The commentary is particularly clear, I thought?
Neither loophole nor poor drafting, but rubbish lawmaking (see also facial recognition debates we've been having).
I suspect we're seeing some downsides of our Representatives' typical demographic here.
I'd call that poor drafting, but I see your distinction.
reohn2 wrote:Mike Sales wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:The commentary is particularly clear, I thought?
Neither loophole nor poor drafting, but rubbish lawmaking (see also facial recognition debates we've been having).
I suspect we're seeing some downsides of our Representatives' typical demographic here.
I'd call that poor drafting, but I see your distinction.
I'd call it ***** lawmaking
slowster wrote:The amendmant to the Road Traffic Act which prohibited the use of mobile phones while driving was made in 2006. At that time smartphones did not exist. Given that smartphones can now be used for so many functions other than speech and message telecommunication, e.g. satellite navigation, it makes some sense that the law would be interpreted in this way. The holding while driving of a smartphone to take video or photographs or perform other functions should presumably be prosecuted instead as a careless driving offence, which I think carries a similar penalty.
It was a High Court judgement, which could be overturned if the CPS decided it was worth taking to the Court of Appeal. Unless and until that happens the judgement is not a precedent which binds other High Court judges, although it would be considered persuasive.
Bonefishblues wrote:Not quite correct. I worked for Vodafone 1998-2005 and camera phones and phones with internet access were certainly available in 2003 (I had a Sharp, the first of its kind, IIRC), so whilst one might not have been able to predict quite the extent of the functionality, it was pretty obvious to us that this was going to be the go-to personal device in the pretty immediate future.
It wasn't hard to make it all-enveloping, even at that stage.
slowster wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:Not quite correct. I worked for Vodafone 1998-2005 and camera phones and phones with internet access were certainly available in 2003 (I had a Sharp, the first of its kind, IIRC), so whilst one might not have been able to predict quite the extent of the functionality, it was pretty obvious to us that this was going to be the go-to personal device in the pretty immediate future.
It wasn't hard to make it all-enveloping, even at that stage.
Legislation is generally necessarily reactive. Trying to anticipate future technological developments and framing laws before the nature of any problems or misuse of the technology became fully apparent would probably be a waste of resources, and often the legislation would prove to be wrong, inadequate or unnecessary, and would have to be repealed and replaced anyway.
IMO the specific legislation banning the use of mobile phones while driving was never really necessary - it was done because police and governments had failed to use the existing offence of careless driving to come down hard on the early owners of mobile phones who used their phone while driving. If they had done that, they would have probably nipped much of the problem in the bud. Instead, the failure to actively enforce the existing offence of careless driving for mobile use meant that as mobile phone ownership rapidly increased, the problem became widespread. Consequently specific legislation was passed to draw a line in the sand and make it clear that it was an offence and that police were expected to charge people using phones while driving.
Bonefishblues wrote:"It shall be an offence to have in the drivers hand whilst in control of a motor vehicle a device..."
Not so hard.
slowster wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:"It shall be an offence to have in the drivers hand whilst in control of a motor vehicle a device..."
Not so hard.
I suspect rather a lot harder than you think. 'Device' is so imprecise and vague that it would probably never be acceptable to legislators and would be thrown out by the courts. Almost anything could be considered a device, and many items would not be considered something which should be prohibited by law e.g. sunglasses, a nasal spray, a credit card for paying tolls etc.
The offence of careless driving avoids falling into the trap of being either overly precise or too vague to be meaningful, and it is also largely futureproof against technological advances, since it is based on the standard of a competent driver (of the day - so it might be considered that a competent driver would use a smartphone for satnav purposes but not for mobile comms, even though satnavs might have seemed like science fiction when the Act was passed).