Free Traffic Legal Advice

If we can assume that the TC is solely concerned with alleged criminal offences...

The TC do not only look at criminal offences. They take into consideration any conduct that is likely to adversely effect road safety.
The TC's have a lot more power than people realise.
One of their powers is to revoke operator licences for conduct which goes against the requirements of the licence. A very real threat and directed recently towards farmers intending to head towards Westminster with their tractors.

...does that not also require holding or touching it if not in a cradle?

I believe not. I seem to recall we’ve had this debate on here before. Imagine this:

You have a hand held phone. Before you begin driving, you make a call and begin speaking. You then switch the phone on to loudspeaker, stick it on your lap (or the passenger seat), start the car and set off. You carry on your conversation with no need to touch the phone. Are you using it?

But I’m not too sure it matters because it seems that the TC is not bound by the tiresome requirements necessary to secure a criminal conviction. Professional drivers of large vehicles are held to higher  standards than the rest and the Commissioner may well find that, regardless of the legal niceties, listening to music from a mobile phone via headphones  whilst driving a coach falls below those standards and warrants sanction.

Wait for roythebus and 3 come along together...most if not all bus/coach/lorry operators have it in their contact of employment prohibiting the use of hand-help phones, and some ban the use entirely in the cab. It is seen as gross misconduct and the employer is obliged to report such offences to the TC for his perusal regardless of whether the police are involved. The companies I work for prohibit the use of mobile devices in the cab, the driver has to shut down and lave the vehicle to use the phone, that way there is no doubt about things.Some prohibit the use of headphones as well.

that'll do it then
I would guess the employer concerned here has such a clause.

Questions for the OP

If your son was filmed by the in vehicle camera what event triggered alert for the camera? Was it the fact that he was continually looking down and it thought he was falling asleep? (A lot of modern HGV/PSV have attention monitoring built in) Or did a driving event such as harsh braking trigger it. Or was your son reported by a third party such as another driver or worse still a passenger on the coach which then lead to the camera being checked.
The company should have robust procedures for viewing the footage and for its further use ICO guidance. Clearly they had enough to dismiss him. What made them check it?

See my explanation above. "The system", depending on type fitted, does it automatically. The company sees the footage soon after "the event". See this link for a better explanation. There's other variations of the same thing out there. Plus the digital tacho (if fitted) sends a constant data stream back to "the system" which can be picked up by enforcement officers on the move.

At least with the TC I don't think he can fine drivers for such offences. But what he can do can be worse than a fine, PSV/HGV licence revoked.

I understand how the systems work, however if the event was flagged up by a third party report of bad driving rather than a system generated warning the outcome in front of the TC could be markedly worse.

Some people are that daft. A bit like the lorry drivers who fail to relise the feds use artic tractor units so see into their cabs.

So the TC is an interesting one. Not been in front of them myself (I drove PCV and work elsewhere in the industry now) But have had to study them and learn for CPC related reasons. One thing I would say off the beat, is TC driver hearings are generally open to the public, so if you want to go with your Son to watch what goes on, you can do (unless it states it's closed doors on the day) and there's the possibly that he may not be speaking to the actual TC, but a deputy on the day. Deputy's have the same power as the TC itself mind, so that point's rather moot.


The fact your son was driving and I assume, moving at the time will make this most likely lean towards as Newjudge said, towards the 4 week period. Length of service may come into account too with the TC potentially being more harsh based on less experience. One driver I spoke to who had been in front of the TC for mobile phone use (Looking at a bus stop, doors open handbrake on) was given a ban of 5 days instead of 4 weeks due to 27 years of service with no issues, this particular issue also being a report from the company (Most companies are obliged to inform the TC of these actions as part of operator license related duties)




Not really sure of anything else truth be told, I made an account just to respond to this post

Firstly thank you for taking the time out to make an account just to respond to my post

The hearing is said to be on Microsoft Teams so not in person (not sure why) the vehicle was moving at 60mph and the offence was interacting (touching) a phone at 60mp, the looking down was what triggered the camera as it thought he was falling asleep, he also has in the past year collected 6 points on his normal drivers licence from speeding in his car on 2 separate occasions which as he had newly passed and gained a full driving licence within 2 years it was revoked, he then was not allowed to drive until he re-sat the theory and practical driving tests which he eventually did after some months and recently managed to find another job where he has been working for just a few weeks.

Yes very stupid things to do but sadly we can no longer give the kids a clip round the ear just hope that they have learnt from their mistakes and do better. He has lost a lot in terms of a well paid job and then his licence which has cost time and money so hopefully he has learnt enough lessons to not repeat them!

Thank you to all those that have given non-judgmental advice it is much appreciated.

Quote

"if he looked at the phone but didn't touch it, that would be no different imo to looking at any other instrument."

But the offence is using the phone, not touching it. And there is a specific offence prohibiting the use of a hand-held phone whilst there isn't one prohibiting the use of (say) a speedometer.

I don't know very much about the work of the Traffic Commissioner and I assumed that any action taken by him would be following a conviction. But it seems not. From the same document this under the "Standard of Proof":

"In the vast majority of driver conduct cases, a traffic commissioner will be able to proceed on the basis of the facts following a conviction, fixed penalty, an endorsement or an admission of guilt. However, where no such findings have been made, the standard of proof required (in such civil proceedings) is the balance of probabilities, but the more serious the allegation the more cogent is the evidence required to overcome the unlikelihood of what is alleged and thus to prove it."

And this under "Double Jeopardy":

"The concept of double jeopardy is sometimes raised in relation to traffic commissioner led regulatory action taking place in parallel with criminal proceedings. However, the principle of double jeopardy does not apply. Case law clearly indicates that regulation would be turned on its head if disciplinary proceedings could only be taken in the less serious of cases, where there are no concurrent criminal proceedings. However, if a traffic commissioner decides to proceed in advance of the criminal proceedings elaborate steps may have to be taken to protect the fairness of those proceedings. Ultimately the decision whether or not to continue is one for the traffic commissioner hearing the matter."

Perhaps Roy can help is out.

As he had already been punished for the speeding on 2 occasions with a total of 6 points and fines which ultimately cost him his car licence which meant he had to resit theory and practical car tests does this mean he can no longer be punished for this? Or could this still be taken into account along with the touching/ using phone whilst driving in a PCV?