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
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186 
Driver fails to prove tad() evidence was inadmissible
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Magistrates reject allegation that a driver was stopped only in order for a Vosa examiner to check his tachograph. Michael Jewell reports.
A DRIVER who accused Vosa of stopping his vehicle unlawfully because a traffic examiner did not carryout a mechanical examination has been fined .£1.50 by the Leyland magistrates.
Peter Cleaver of Wandsworth, London, had pleaded not guilty to exceeding the daily driving limit and taking insufficient daily rest, He argued that evidence of drivers' hours offences against him was inadmissible.
Powers to stop Traffic examiner David Haxby said that on 30 June 2005 he was driving a Vasa-liveried Powers to Stop vehicle when he saw an a rtic tanker operated by FIJ Van Bentum, which he escorted to the check site at Cuerden, Lancs.
He told the court that he had not spoken to the driver to inform him he was being stopped for a roadside inspection.
Traffic examiner Peter Illsley said the vehicle had been weighed, and he had then carried out a walk-round check of the tyres, lights, bodywork and general condition. He had been looking for obvious defects and had he seen any he would have called in a vehicle examiner to carry out a more detailed examination. He had carried out a mechanical examination, as it was a legal requirement when a vehicle was brought into a check site.
In reply to Ian Dacre, defending, Illsley agreed there was no record in his notebook of the mechanical check. Responding to a suggestion that he had not made a visual inspection because he was interested only in talking to the driver about tachograph offences, Illsley said Van Benturn was well known for running vehicles with mechanical defects.
Cleaver said that when he arrived at the check site Illsley had come over to his vehicle straight away. He had been expecting a vehicle examiner to inspect the vehicle but instead Illsley had immediately asked for his tachograph records, insurance and green card.
He had not seen Insley going round the vehicle and examining it, and he did not believe Illsley had inspected it at all.
Questioned by John Heaton, for Vosa, Cleaver agreed that when he appeared before the Traffic Commissioner in October 2005, he had said he could not remember if Illsley had carried °ma walk-round check. He conceded it was possible that one had been done.
Question of evidence Dacre said if the inspection had not taken place, stopping the vehicle was unlawful and the evidence had been obtained unlawfully.
Convicting Cleaver, the magistrates said they were satisfied that Insley had conducted a brief inspection, which was the test for the purposes of the legislation. As well as the fine they ordered Cleaver to pay £150 costs. •