R (on the application of Andrew Olins) v Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court 2025


O was convicted by Lavender Hill Magistrates Court for holding a mobile phone while driving, contrary to regulation 110(1) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. O argued he took hold of the phone to prevent it from slipping off the passenger seat while using a Bluetooth connection for a call. The magistrates refused to state a case, finding the application frivolous.
 
O sought an order of mandamus to compel magistrates to state a case. The High Court found the conviction was lawful but questioned the magistrates' reasoning on the absence of special reasons.

O makes two principal submissions. O argued that 'using' in the context of regulation 110 requires interaction with the phone itself and not merely holding it to prevent it from slipping. He contended that there were no special reasons to hold the phone accountable under the regulation.  If Parliament had considered that the holding of a mobile telephone while driving was without more an offence, it would have said so.
 
The Crown Prosecution Service maintained that O was using a hand-held mobile phone by making a voice call via Bluetooth while holding the device, thereby fulfilling the requirements of the regulation and justifying the conviction.
 

Held


Appeal dismissed
 
The court dismissed the claim for judicial review regarding the conviction but allowed the application for judicial review concerning special reasons. It ordered the magistrates to state a case on the issue of special reasons and remitted the matter to the Magistrates Court for redetermination.

The court concluded that 'using' a mobile phone includes instances where the phone is held during use via Bluetooth connection. The justices were correct to convict O based on the evidence that he held the phone while using it. However, the court found the magistrates did not provide adequate reasoning for their decision on special reasons. This omission made it difficult to assess whether the application to state a case on special reasons was frivolous.

View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
 
Reproduced with the permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis