Circumstances cuts fines
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Julie Sinclair, who traded as Rochdale Road Runners, has had fines, costs and back duty totalling £6,811,66 cut to £4,147 at Burnley Crown Court.
In December Sinclair pleaded guilty before the Rawtenstall magistrates to seven offences of running vehicles without vehicle excise licences; six offences of running them without annual vehicle test certificates; 12 offences of permitting drivers to drive excessive hours and take insufficient rest; 13 offences of failing to preserve tachograph records and one offence of using an unauthorised operating centre. The magistrates fined Sinclair £6,415 and ordered her to pay £146.66 back duty and £250 prosecution costs (CM 1319 January).
For Sinclair, Jonathan Harding said that she appeared in person before the magistrates. They did
%Ng
6 6
not see any documentary evidence from her about anything. Rochdale Road Runners was a badly run, inefficient business, staffed by inexperienced people. It was a small business with three drivers and four vehicles which was started in 1987.
In 1991 Sinclair's husband was convicted of tachograph offences and that meant that he could not hold an 0-licence. Julie Sinclair then ran the business, although her main interest was in her carpet business. In 1992 a manager was appointed and the running of the business was left to him. Rochdale Road Runners ceased trading in December. There had been a profit of £800 in 1992, but from June to December 1993 there was a net loss of £13,000.
The vehicles were repossessed two days ago, said Harding. It was anticipated that David Sinclair would be declared bankrupt to the sum of .C52,000 and Julie Sinclair had made voluntary arrangements to repay debts of £28,000 over a period of time. She was flow employed as a secretary and receptionist by Manchester & Rochdale Road Runners which had taken over the business of Rochdale Road Runners. David Sinclair was also employed by them.
They were serious offences and deserved punishment, but bearing in mind the financial background the level of fine ought to be reduced, he argued.
The court reduced the total fines to £3,460 and the back duty to £87. They ordered Julie Sinclair to pay a total of £600 towards the prosecution's costs.