AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Wire ignorance no defence

1st September 1994
Page 7
Page 7, 1st September 1994 — Wire ignorance no defence
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?

• An LGV driver and his employer are breaking the law even if they are unaware that his vehicle has a device designed to interfere with its tachograph.

A judge decided this last week when he dismissed appeals by Claymore Transport (Rothienorman) and driver Steven Anderson against their convictions for using a vehicle when the tachograph did not comply with EC regulations.

Judge Anthony Proctor at Carlisle Crown Court said fines of .£500 on the company and £ 140 on Anderson were appropriate.

Traffic examiner Keith Smith said he found an additional wire, one end of which was pushed into the connector box providing the power supply to the tachograph, when Anderson's artic was stopped in a check. Both the company and Anderson denied any know]. edge of the wire.

The defending solicitor had argued that merely having a wire was not an offence and it was for the prosecution to prove that it did actually interfere with the tacho in this case.

But Judge Proctor said that the wire was capable of interfering with the tacho and this constituted an offence of "strict liability", so it was no defence to say that the company and driver did not know it was there.