The appellant appealed his conviction for driving while holding a hand-held communication device, arguing that his vehicle was stopped in a live lane of traffic when he took a photograph of a collision.
He sought to introduce fresh expert evidence to prove the vehicle was not moving and argued the trial justice erred in failing to apply the W.(D.) framework to conflicting evidence on this point.
The appeal court dismissed the appeal, holding that the word 'drives' in the Highway Traffic Act does not require the vehicle to be in motion.
Because the vehicle's motion was immaterial to the offence, the fresh evidence was irrelevant and the trial justice did not err in declining to apply W.(D.).
