[N.B. For the avoidance of any doubt, this post was intended as a response to Roy's someone confused assertions, not to SP's post which mine crossed]
With the greatest respect to NJ, as far as I am aware he is not a lawyer, and you definitely aren't.
Neither am I, for that matter in the conventional sense, but I digress.
NJ seems to have a far better understanding of the law than the average man in the street. I do not know which street you are in and will therefore refrain from making further comparisons.
The way that criminal offences are created in statute is that there is a detailed provision setting out what a person must or must not do in a particular situation, and a separate provision, sometimes within the same section, and sometimes in a different Act, making it an offence not to comply with the first provision.
The provision you quoted creates the offence of doing whatever Reg. 110 say you mustn't. Unless there is some ambiguity regarding Parliament's intention from the language of Reg. 110, and unless the wording of the provision creating the offence clarifies that intention, it is all but meaningless in determining the finer details of what activities are being prohibited.
This is not BODMAS in maths , where the order of operations can be critical. If Reg 110 prohibits using a hand held mobile telephone while driving, all 3 elements must be present for the offence to be complete. It matters not one jot whether you refer to it as driving while using a hand held mobile phone, or using a hand-held mobile phone while driving.
