1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168 
Driver was not morally guilty
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Oswestry-based Pentons Haulage & Gold Storage has been fined £100 for a first axle overload by Yate Magistrates.
However, the magistrates gave the driver of the vehicle David Roberts an absolute discharge on the grounds that he was morally blameless.
The court was told that, when the rigid vehicle concerned was weighed, the first axle was overloaded by 530kg, or 11.28%.
Roberts said the vehicle had been loaded by Dairy Crest staff at Frome. lie was not allowed to take any part in the loading, but he was satisfied that the load was back from the headboard.
The overall weight had been three tonnes under the vehicle's permitted gross weight and there had been nothing in the vehicle's behaviour to indicate a problem. He had been entirely unconcerned while queuing at the dynamic axle weighbridge to be weighed.
For both the company and Roberts, Jonathan Lawton said that he completely failed to understand why Dairy Crest had not been prosecuted, as there was provision in the legislation for that to take place. It was the clearest possible example of a case where the responsibility for the offence lay with those who had loaded the vehicle.
There was no obligation on operators to weigh every vehicle, said Lawton. The company had to rely upon the skill of its drivers, and Roberts had exercised proper skill and attention. He argued that no penalty ought to be imposed on either defendant.
The magistrates said that it was the company's duty to speak to its customer Dairy Crest to ensure there was no possibility of offences of such a nature recurring. He ordered the company to pay £85 towards the costs of the prosecution, and ordered Roberts to pay £70.