Wednesday, June 24, 2026

Valyrian News Network

Understanding, Automated

Legal & Justice

Belgian Woman Acquitted of Phone-While-Driving on Camera

Valyrian News Network — — 4 min read

Belgian Woman Acquitted of Phone-While-Driving Despite Camera Evidence

A 32-year-old woman from Diksmuide, Belgium, has been acquitted of using her mobile phone while driving, even though a trajectory control camera clearly captured her holding a phone behind the wheel. The Police Court of Veurne ruled that photos taken by unmanned automatic speed cameras do not carry “special evidentiary value” (bijzondere bewijswaarde) for offenses other than speeding, according to VRT NWS.

The Incident

On December 14, 2025, the woman drove through a trajectory control zone on the N35 road in Pervijze, West Flanders, where the speed limit is 70 km/h. She was recorded driving at 79 km/h, corrected to 73 km/h — just 3 km/h over the limit. The camera not only captured her speeding but also clearly showed her holding a mobile phone in her hand.

While she accepted the €80 fine for speeding, her defense attorney, Thomas Bailleul, a traffic law specialist, challenged the phone use charge on legal grounds. “We acknowledge that she drove too fast, but dispute the phone use,” Bailleul argued, as reported by HLN. “The photo has no legal value, meaning my client cannot be prosecuted. We therefore request acquittal.”

Belgian traffic law draws a critical distinction between two types of enforcement devices. Manned automatic devices — where a police officer operates or monitors the equipment — carry special evidentiary value, meaning the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. Unmanned automatic devices, such as fixed speed cameras and trajectory control systems, currently only have special evidentiary value for the specific offenses listed in the Royal Decree of December 18, 2002 — primarily speeding.

For other visible offenses captured incidentally — such as phone use, seatbelt violations, or other infractions — the photo carries only “ordinary” evidentiary value. The court is free to interpret the image but is not legally bound by it.

The Police Court of Veurne applied this distinction strictly. “According to the traffic regulations, photos taken by an unmanned speed camera do not yet have evidentiary value,” the court stated. “Moreover, the defendant was not specifically interrogated about the alleged phone use.”

This case highlights a significant gap between modern enforcement technology and the legal framework governing it. Just two months earlier, on March 31, 2026, the Belgian Court of Cassation ruled in case P.25.1387.N that photos from ANPR cameras used lawfully for speed control can be used to establish other visible offenses, and that doing so does not violate privacy rights, as legal analyst Jan Beldé of BCB Advocaten explained.

However, the Cassation ruling addressed the admissibility of the evidence — specifically, whether using the photo for phone detection violates privacy — not its evidentiary weight. The Veurne Police Court’s decision focused on the latter distinction, creating a situation where the evidence is admissible but carries insufficient legal weight to secure a conviction.

Implications and Next Steps

Defense attorney Thomas Bailleul explained the practical consequences clearly to Focus-WTV: “The reason is legal-technical. The relevant article states that unmanned cameras can register a speeding violation, but cannot establish a phone use violation. As long as the law doesn’t change, and unmanned cameras are not permitted to establish such violations, this should always lead to acquittal.”

A legislative proposal from May 7, 2020 seeks to amend the Road Traffic Act to extend special evidentiary value to all traffic violations detected by unmanned devices. However, the Orde van Vlaamse Balies (OVB) published a position on May 8, 2026 opposing this extension, arguing it would create an excessive reversal of the burden of proof that undermines defense rights.

What to Watch For

The case raises several open questions that will shape Belgian traffic enforcement going forward. Will the prosecution appeal the Veurne ruling to a higher court, potentially creating a definitive precedent? How will the Court of Cassation’s March ruling be reconciled with this Police Court decision? And most significantly, will this high-profile acquittal accelerate the pending legislative efforts to close the gap between camera technology and traffic law?

For now, the ruling creates a notable precedent: drivers caught on camera holding phones may escape conviction unless the law is updated — or unless police supplement camera evidence with witness testimony from officers on the scene.