AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

London Hauliers Fined

16th February 1962
Page 34
Page 34, 16th February 1962 — London Hauliers Fined
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

FINES totalling £240, with costs of 95 gns., were imposed on Davis Brothers (Haulage), Ltd., of Stepney, at Tower Bridge Magistrates' Court last week for failing to cause proper work records to be kept by five of their drivers.

The firm pleaded "not guilty" to 12 summonses against them and there were a further 20 summonses against the drivers for failing to keep current records, driving more than II hours in 24, driving more than 5i hours continuously and failing to take at least 10 hours' consecutive rest in 24.

The records officer employed by Davis Brothers said that his firm had done all that was economically possible to ensure that correct records were kept and that drivers conformed to the law.

Before being addressed by counsel, Mr. Loudoun, the magistrate, said he would stand by decisions taken in similar cases he had heard—that a defence of mens rea (guilty knowledge on the part a the firm) was not sufficient; that "current record" meant an accurate

record; and that "keeping tecords " meant an absolute duty on the employers. Any disagreement on those, he said, must be decided by a higher court.

For the prosecution, Mr. E. M. Hill submitted that a driver taking a lorry home after signing off at a depot constititted "employed in driving," and thus the onus of responsibility for 'records. that were inaccurate because of this rested with the company.

For the defence, Mr. M. Beckman submitted that earlier decisions on the mens rea defence should not be taken as a precedent, If, as in the case of one of the drivers, there was no advantage to the company in a driver taking the vehicle home, the words "employed in driving" could not apply. It was difficult to see what else the company could do to prevent the drivers taking their vehicles home, he added.

Mr. Loudoun found all the cases against the company proved. It is understood that the company are considering an appeal to the Divisional Court.