Distracted Driving — Current Case Law

Distracted Driving — Current Case Law

In December 2012, I wrote an article on the case of Farnworth v R [2012] Bda LR 44 (151 KB PDF). This particular case provided guidance on the definition of a hand-held device which was in use while driving. Furthermore, it illustrated that the definition of ‘use’ with regards to a hand-held device was quite wide.

In Bermuda, the law that guides the use of hand-held devices while driving is regulation 44 of the Motor Car (Construction, Equipment and Use) Regulations 1952 (the “Regulation”). This Regulation has once again come under judicial analysis in the recent case of Lincoln Raynor-Saldana v The Queen [2014] SC (Bda) 58 App (262 KB PDF).

This particular case was an appeal from the Magistrate’s Court of Bermuda (Criminal Division) wherein Mr. Raynor-Saldana (the “Appellant”) was convicted for using a hand-held cell phone, namely an iPhone. Mr. Raynor-Saldana was fined $400 and given six (6) demerit points.

Counsel for Mr. Raynor-Saldana appealed this conviction to the Supreme Court on the basis that the meaning of the word ‘use’ had been misconstrued because the Learned Magistrate had misapplied the law in that having headphones plugged into an Apple iPhone was sufficient evidence of guilt in the circumstances.

The issue in consideration for the Chief Justice was whether or not the device was in use by virtue of being available for use. It was ultimately concluded that the Magistrate had erred in finding that a device being “available for use” was the same as being in use.

The intent of the Regulation is that one has to be actively using the device while driving, which in this current case was not the situation.

The appeal was allowed.