FT/D/2024/0824/FPP - [2025] UKFTT 01240 (GRC)

The evidence

We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 28 numbered pages.

We heard submissions from the Appellant at the hearing. He stated that the mobile phone was not being used at the time of the incident; he has hands free capability for taking calls so had no need to be holding it. He admitted the offence. The Appellant said that the footage (which was not before the Tribunal, save for some still photographs at page 23 of the bundle) was captured by a member of the public’s dashcam and sent to police as part of Operation Snap, leading to his prosecution. The still images in the bundle show the phone being held in his right hand, apparently in front of his face, when his right hand was not on the wheel. He said that the footage shows that his eyes never left the road ahead, the incident occurred in a very quiet street when there was no pupil in the car and his speed was no more than 10mph. He said that the phone was not being used and could have been another object such as a bottle of water or vape and there would have been no repercussion.

The Appellant stated that at the time of the incident, his mother was gravely ill, passing away 18 days later, and his mind was wandering between lessons, which could be why he had the phone in his hand. Although he had accepted responsibility, he disagreed that simply touching or holding the phone was sufficient to make out the offence, because he was not using it at the time. He contended that if it was a bottle of water or a vape there would be other actions which were required. He accepted there had been a lapse in concentration.