Mobile phone prosecution - James Majury killed 2

[jpaul]

Is this case a president then ?
It would appear police analysed mobile phone usage before the event, and that itself (!), plus data showing he was using phone at the time of accident gave them the prosecution;
Tragic outcome here, notwithstanding, hopefully this will give other mobile offenders, food for thought .

They don't seem to confirm if the phone was cradled, not that that matters, in so much that he, nonetheless, allowed himself to be distracted;
I guess it was, otherwise reports would have siad he had it one hand.

If you are involved in an accident with another car, and suspect such a distraction (mobile or Infotainment comms) was involved, what kind of justification would be needed before police would obtain similar data, to confrim, or exonerate other party.

 

[vanpeebles]

No, it’s been before. I lost a good mate due to a woman on the phone, they checked her records and there was numerous logs while she was driving just before the crash.

 

[Diagro]

Hmmm.
Mines used for maps and amazon music.

Interesting

 

[jsmoke]

Precedence .

It's obvious you were typing this while driving due to spelling mistakes.

Could you not just saying something was downloading on the phone hence the mobile data running, or can they specifically tell what the data is accessing?

Justification could be death.

 

[Rroff]

I'm assuming there is more to it than that - my phone is frequently using data even with the screen off.

 

[vanandjuanunited]

The court heard Majury had opened other apps during his journey, including medieval fantasy game Hustle Castle and Sky Sports News, as well as responding to text messages from his mother.

He also twice manually unlocked his phone by entering a six-digit pin.

There you go not just downloading data.

 

[jpaul]

Document showing what the event data recorder in most cars now captures, for crashes,
so you can pretty much tell if someone was paying attention , braking/steering ....etc.


https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title49-vol6/pdf/CFR-2011-title49-vol6-part563.pdf

 

[MikeTheNative]

I'm assuming there is more to it than that - my phone is frequently using data even with the screen off.

Got to be, listening to spotify can also use data as well.

 

[Semple]

The court heard Majury had opened other apps during his journey, including medieval fantasy game Hustle Castle and Sky Sports News, as well as responding to text messages from his mother.

He also twice manually unlocked his phone by entering a six-digit pin.

There you go not just downloading data.

That makes a lot more sense.

As others have said, your phone could be using data for music/sat nav, as well as doing automatic updates, also email/whatsapp regularly pull data even when screen is off.

They couldn't even use the fact that being "on a call" is grounds for prosecution, as it's perfectly legal to be on a call assuming it's all hands-free (again also assuming that you're paying attention to driving).

 

[Burnsy2023]

If you are involved in an accident with another car, and suspect such a distraction (mobile or Infotainment comms) was involved, what kind of justification would be needed before police would obtain similar data, to confrim, or exonerate other party.

Usually if a indictable offence is suspected, which are the more serious ones. That's when powers of search and seizure would come in.

 

[jpaul]

After reading BBC article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-53695045
and daily mail

He only noticed the minibus carrying children to Pontville School, a special needs school in Ormskirk, half a second before the impact.
Despite slamming on his brakes, his lorry hit the minibus at 50mph.

He went on to engage in a six-minute hands-free phone conversation with his partner before Majury unlocked his phone again a minute before the crash and sent another message to his mother before opening the Facebook app.

etc...

seems he had pleaded guilty, so, the relative weight, of the phone use, close to the impact time, and, his proven, slow braking response(tacograph in one article), was not put to a jury.

Usually if a indictable offence is suspected

for many accidents, I'd have thought distraction was contributory, so if the police have the means to analyse phones, then seizing these would be reasonable, as a default.
https://www.incibe-cert.es/en/blog/mobile-forensic-analyses-tools

 

[Burnsy2023]

for many accidents, I'd have thought distraction was contributory, so if the police have the means to analyse phones, then seizing these would be reasonable, as a default.
https://www.incibe-cert.es/en/blog/mobile-forensic-analyses-tools

Police aren't going to be seizing phones as default, that's just not proportionate.