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
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
Records Case: Judge's Comment
Page 112
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ANappeal by Superintendent John William Fairbrother, of the Bicester police, against a decision of Bicester magistrates in favour of a lorry driver was allowed by Lord Hewart and Justices Humphreys and Singleton in a King's Bench Divisional Court on Tuesday. The Court ordered that the justices should convict on a charge which alleged that the driver failed to carry a current record. It appeared that before justices it was proved that the defendant drove the vehicle and failed to carry a current record of his journey on the proper form.
The justices declined to convict, holding (I) that on its true con struction, paragraph 6 of the regulations said that no person could be convicted of such an offence if he showed that it was not reasonably practicable for such a record to be delivered and (2) that it was not sufficient to prove that the person charged failed to carry the record, without proving also that he had not signed the record and delivered it to his employer or the holder of the licence.
Giving judgment, Lord Hewart said the case was a hopeless one. " The justices, inspired by some source, have found that the respondent was not guilty of an offence because it was not shown that he did not sign and deliver a non-existent record."